A local council exercising subdivision approval powers does not owe a duty of care to subsequent purchasers of subdivided land in respect of the technical specifications imposed for drainage infrastructure, where the infrastructure serves the public road function rather than the protection of lot owners. The salient features analysis from Graham Barclay Oysters requires consideration of whether the statutory powers were given for the protection of the plaintiff's class, the degree of control over the risk, and the foreseeability of harm to the particular plaintiff. A council as dominant owner of a drainage easement in gross is not liable in nuisance for pipeline defects unless it knew or should have known of the defects; complaints about fill instability unrelated to the pipeline do not constitute constructive knowledge of pipeline defects.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 21 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 21 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.