Inducement combined with reliance remains a factor of special significance in determining liability for negligent misstatement causing economic loss, even after the High Court's rejection of proximity as a unifying criterion in Perre v Apand. A bank's general discussion of the pros and cons of a transaction, without an intention to induce, does not give rise to a duty of care. A cross-claim is a separate action for costs purposes, and Pt 52A r 4(2) prevents the court from ordering costs of a cross-claim against a person who is not a party to it.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.