Civil trial - Negligent misrepresentation - Verbal and written representations - Telephone conversations - Duty of care owed by defendant - Council aware that plaintiff intended to act upon information provided to him - Representations true in substance and in fact - No cause of action - Misrepresentation in Council letter to plaintiff
Local government regulations - Amendments to the Rottnest Island Regulations 1988 - Plaintiff's position altered as a result of amendments to regulations - No misrepresentation - Defendant's statements accorded with the law
Breach of Fair Trading Act 1987 - Nothing in representations that offended s 10 of the Fair Trading Act 1987 - Defendant's conduct not unconscionable
Estoppel - Not necessary to decide if cause of action established
Case Details
Citation[2000] WASC 106
CourtWASC
JurisdictionWestern Australia
Unlock so much more with Barrister AI
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.
