Heller And Partners Case Summary

Decent Essays
In Commonwealth Bank vs Heller and Partners case heard in the Queensland Supreme Court the defendant won the case, while the Bank of Queensland vs McCann Advertising case heard in the District Court I found that the defendant was in the wrong and owed a duty of care. In the Heller and Partners (plaintiff) vs The Commonwealth Bank (defendant) case the plaintiff approached the defendant about a client. The defendant gave a favorable reference but stated the reference was given without responsibility. Heller and Partners acted on the client which lead to a loss of $17 000. When the plaintiff tried to sue the defendant for giving negligent advice the case resulted in Judge Justice Wesling ruling in Commonwealth Banks favour saying that “Commonwealth Bank did not owe a duty of care” to the plaintiff as “the bank had…show more content…
Although the obiter applies to case number two the ratio doesn’t as the defendant in the first case had disclaimed responsibility and the defendant in the second case hadn’t disclaimed responsibility therefore owing a duty of care. In conclusion the decision I thought to be right, in the Bank of Queensland vs McCann Advertising case is that the defendant should owe a duty of care has they had not disclaimed responsibility therefore giving the plaintiff negligent advice. Which Mr. Wesling had stated in his court that if a person seeks information or advice from another, and the person relies on the advice then a duty of care ought to be owed if that another person does not disclaim responsibility, which in this case they hadn’t which resulted in the plaintiff losing $30
Get Access