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 in rectifying structural defects. The matter proceeded to the High Court of Australia on appeal.

The High Court was required to determine whether the respondents owed a duty of care to the appellant in respect of the alleged negligent misrepresentations. Specifically, the court considered whether the existing common law principles governing liability for negligent misstatement extended to a situation where the representee suffered economic loss as a result of relying on representations concerning the condition of property, and whether the appellant fell within the class of persons to whom such a duty might be owed. The court also had to consider the scope of any such duty and whether it had been breached.

The High Court, by majority, held that the respondents did not owe a duty of care to the appellant. The majority reasoned that the existing common law, as established in cases such as *Caparo Industries plc v Dickman* and *Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd v Pless-White Motor Sales Pty Ltd*, did not recognise a duty of care in circumstances where a party makes a representation about the condition of property, and a subsequent purchaser suffers pure economic loss as a result of relying on that representation. The court distinguished the present case from situations where a duty of care might arise, such as where a representor assumes responsibility for the accuracy of the statement to the representee, or where the representation is made in the context of a pre-existing contractual or fiduciary relationship. The court found that the appellant had not established the necessary elements for the imposition of a duty of care under the established principles of negligence.

The appeal was dismissed.