Galovac Pty Limited v ACT

[2010] ACTSC 132

Supreme Court of the ACT

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Summary judgment
3. › Strike out
4. › General principles
5. › Whether claim bound to fail
6. › Whether cause of action disclosed
7. › Court Procedure Rules 2006 (ACT), rr 425, 1147
1. Tort
2. › Negligence
3. › Duty of care
4. › Pure economic loss
5. › Concurrent liability in contract and tort
6. › Whether duty of care owed by statutory land authority to purchaser of land
7. › Whether concurrent tortious duty excluded by contract for sale
1. Limitation of Actions
2. › When cause of action accrues
3. › Economic loss
4. › Whether loss crystallised at date of contract or at later date
5. › Limitation Act 1985 (ACT), s 11

Quick Take

A claim in negligence for economic loss against a statutory land authority arising from the manner of issuing Crown leases is not necessarily bound to fail, even where a contract for sale exists between the parties, particularly where the authority exercises statutory land development functions. The question of concurrent tortious liability alongside contractual obligations in non-professional relationships remains unsettled. The characterisation of when economic loss crystallises for limitation purposes depends on the existence and content of the duty of care alleged.