A supplier of building materials may owe a duty of care for pure economic loss to a non-contracting party who is the intended operator of the building, where the supplier knows the builder and owner/operator are the same interest, assumes responsibility for timely delivery, and knows the owner/operator relies on that assumption. However, this was a 2-1 decision and the dissent held that the separate legal identity of corporations precludes such a duty where the supplier does not know the identity of the operator. The case illustrates the continuing uncertainty in the law of pure economic loss following [name withheld] v Apand Pty Ltd.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.