Negligent Misstatement

The Barwick CJ test – MLC v Evatt

1. Trust by P
2. D realises or ought to have realised that P will reply in connexion with a matter of business or serious consequence
3. P reasonably relies

Statements made to the public at large – Sans Sebastian v The Minister

1. Request by P or
2. Assumption of responsibility by D or
3. Invitation to P to rely or
4. Intention to induce P to rely or
5. Interest in P relying

Three party cases – Esanda Finance v Peat

• D knew or ought to have known that the advice would be communicated to the pl (individually or as a member of an identified class)
• For a purpose that would be very likely to lead the pl to enter into a transaction of the kind that the pl does enter into
• Very likely that the pl would rely on this information