legal major assignment

legal major assignment - Does the Megabank owe a duty of...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Does the Megabank owe a duty of care to Michael? In establishing whether a duty of care is owed under the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) (CLA) , the primary test is to determine whether the plaintiff is reasonably foreseeable 1 . This can be seen through the “neighbour test” established by Lord Atkin in Donoghue v Stevenson 2 or the “proximity” test which was used by the High Court in the 1980’s and 1990’s 3 but later disregarded. 4 Firstly, Michael was a neighbour of Megabank due to ‘neighbour test’; then need to establish whether there is reasonably foreseeability of damage. Michael would reasonably foreseeable that damage may result from Trish’s careless advice. There is a sufficient closeness of relationship between Megabank and Michael. Trish’s carelessness could be predicted to adversely affected Michael. And Trish should have known that it was reasonable for Michael to rely on her advice since she probably identified herself as the manager of the George Street branch of ‘Megabank’ but note Michael did not seek a response in writing. The tort is negligent misstatement. A duty of care applies to negligent misstatements. If a person is giving advice in professional capacity or holding themselves out as an expert, they owe a duty of care to the person being advised. 1
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 5

legal major assignment - Does the Megabank owe a duty of...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online