Shaddock & Associates Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council [No 1]

Shaddock & Associates Pty Ltd and its director, Mr. Shaddock, brought proceedings against Parramatta City Council. The dispute concerned the Council's provision of information regarding proposed road-widening works that would affect properties owned by Shaddock & Associates. Shaddock & Associates alleged that the Council had negligently provided misleading information, causing them to suffer loss when they purchased properties that were subsequently affected by the road-widening scheme. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Council owed a duty of care to Shaddock & Associates in providing information about its future planning proposals, specifically the proposed road-widening scheme. This involved determining whether the Council's conduct in supplying this information, knowing that it was likely to be relied upon by prospective purchasers, fell within the established principles of negligence, particularly concerning the Hedley Byrne principle concerning negligent misstatement. The court also had to consider whether, if a duty of care existed, it had been breached and if that breach had caused the loss claimed by Shaddock & Associates.

The High Court, in a majority decision, held that the Council did owe a duty of care to Shaddock & Associates. The majority reasoned that the Council, by providing specific information about its planning proposals in response to an inquiry, had voluntarily assumed a responsibility to provide accurate information. This was particularly so given the Council's knowledge that such information would likely be relied upon by the inquirer for a specific purpose, namely, to inform property acquisition decisions. The court applied the principles established in *Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd* and extended them to circumstances where a public authority provides information in its capacity as a statutory body. The court found that the Council had breached this duty of care by failing to disclose the existence of the proposed road-widening scheme, which was a significant factor affecting the value of the properties.

The High Court found in favour of Shaddock & Associates, holding the Council liable for the loss suffered. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court of New South Wales for the assessment of damages.