To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
Woolcock Street Investments Pty Ltd v CDG Pty Ltd [2002] QCA 88
JUDGE(S):
McMurdo P, Thomas JA, Douglas J
DELIVERED ON:
21 March 2002
Close
Editorial Notes
Published Case Name:
Woolcock St Investments P/L v CDG P/L & Anor
Shortened Case Name:
Woolcock Street Investments Pty Ltd v CDG Pty Ltd
MNC:
[2002] QCA 88
Court:
QCA
Judge(s):
McMurdo P, Thomas JA, Douglas J
Date:
21 Mar 2002
White Star Case:
Yes
Litigation History
Event
Citation or File
Date
Notes
Primary Judgment
SC No 9193 of 1996 (no citation)
11 Jul 2001
Order pursuant to r 483(2) of UCPR stating case for opinion of Court of Appeal as to whether plaintiff's statement of claim disclosed cause of action in negligence against defendants: Atkinson J
Considering whether recognised category of duty of care owed by engineer to subsequent owner of residential property ought be extended to owner of commercial premises; answering case stated for opinion as "No": M McMurdo P, Thomas JA and Douglas J
Special Leave Granted (HCA)
[2003] HCATrans 646
14 Mar 2003
Plaintiff applied for special leave to appeal against case stated; whether principle in Bryan v Maloney should extend to commercial buildings; special leave granted: McHugh, Kirby and Heydon JJ
Although doubtful whether distinction between dwellings and commercial premises should be drawn, in this case no duty of care was owed to original owner such that principle in Bryan v Maloney could not apply to subsequent purchaser: Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow, Hayne, Callinan and Heydon JJ (Kirby J dissenting)
Appeal Status
Appeal Determined (QCA) - Appeal Determined (HCA)
Please select (using the checkboxes) which search results you would like to add to a list.
