Woolcock Street Investments Pty Ltd v CDG Pty Ltd and Anor B19/2003

Woolcock Street Investments Pty Ltd (the appellant) brought proceedings against CDG Pty Ltd and another (the respondents) in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute concerned the appellant's claim for damages arising from alleged negligent misrepresentations made by the respondents concerning the structural integrity of a building. The appellant alleged that it relied on these misrepresentations when purchasing the building, and subsequently incurred significant costs to rectify structural defects. The matter proceeded to the High Court of Australia on appeal.

The High Court was required to determine whether a duty of care was owed by the respondents to the appellant in circumstances where the alleged misrepresentations were made in a commercial context, and the appellant suffered pure economic loss as a result of relying on those representations. Specifically, the court considered the principles governing the recovery of pure economic loss in tort, particularly in the context of negligent misstatement and the established categories of liability.

The majority of the High Court held that, in the absence of a special relationship of proximity between the parties, a duty of care does not arise in tort for pure economic loss caused by negligent misstatement in a commercial transaction. The court affirmed that the established categories for recovery of pure economic loss, such as where the plaintiff is vulnerable to the defendant's conduct and there is no effective remedy available elsewhere, were not met in this case. The court distinguished the present circumstances from those where a duty of care has been found to exist, emphasizing the importance of commercial autonomy and the principle that parties in commercial dealings are generally expected to protect their own interests.

The appeal was dismissed.