Seeds, Wees and Unlawful Means: Negligent Infliction of Economic Loss and Interference with Trade and Business By Francesco Bonollo Perre v Apand
Duty of Care In Perre v Appand the full court of the HCA found that a duty of care was owed my Apand to Perre and that it had been breached. Each justice delivered separate judgments reflecting their differing opinions in Although the judgments differed, a number of exclusions can be determined. These include the rule that foreseeability of damage does not automatically allow recovery; liability must be determinate hence the class of people must be easily ascertained; second line victims cannot recover and legitimate competitive actions which cause loss to the plaintiff do not give rise to a duty of care. Salient Features Test The salient features test Gummow J favoured in his judgment is now the preferred approach. The salient features were most recently defined by Gillard J in Johnson Tiles No 5 include: reliance by the plaintiff and/or undertaking of responsibility by the defendant; a regime a contracts between various parties in a supply chain; a statutory regime regulating the supply of a service; whether the imposition of a duty of care would impose liability to an indeterminate class; whether a finding of a duty would be inconsistent with community standards in relation to the pursuit of personal advantage and knowledge (either real or constructive) of an ascertainable class of persons likely to incur damage.
Unlawful Interference Tort
Unlawful interference (direct) • The unlawful interference tort was adopted by Neill LJ in Associated British Ports v Transport and General Workers’ Union he said that the basic ingredients are that there must be interference with the plaintiff’s trade or business, that it is done by an unlawful means and that the intention of the actions is to hurt the plaintiff.
Unlawful interference with contract (indirect) Unlawful interference with...