Tepko Pty Ltd v Water Board

Tepko Pty Ltd (the appellant) brought proceedings against the Water Board (the respondent) alleging negligent misstatement and misfeasance in public office. The dispute concerned economic loss suffered by Tepko as a result of information provided by the Water Board regarding the availability of a water supply to a property. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the Water Board owed Tepko a duty of care in providing the information, whether that duty was breached, and whether Tepko suffered actionable pure economic loss as a result of any such breach. The Court also considered whether the Water Board had acted in misfeasance in public office. A key aspect of the determination involved assessing whether the Water Board knew that the information it provided was intended to be the basis for a critical step by Tepko, and whether Tepko was vulnerable to the Water Board's actions, necessitating further inquiry by Tepko.

The Court of Appeal, applying principles derived from cases such as *Perre v Apand Pty Ltd*, found that the Water Board did not owe Tepko a duty of care. The Court reasoned that the Water Board did not have sufficient knowledge that Tepko would rely on the information provided as the sole basis for its decision to purchase the property, nor was Tepko in a position of vulnerability such that it could not make further inquiries. The Court concluded that the information provided by the Water Board was not of a kind that created a duty of care in the circumstances, and therefore, the claim for negligent misstatement failed. The claim for misfeasance in public office was also dismissed.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.