Interpretation of
past decisions
Norris v Sibberas
Langridge v Levy
Winterbottom v Wright
George v Skivington
Heaven v Pender
Powerpoint by Swissy, Sal dog and Mattieu
Norris v. Sibberas (1989) (The Bonnie
Doon Motor Inn case)
o In this case, Mr and Mrs Sibberas believed they
received negligent advice from their real estate
agent (Mrs Norris)
o Mrs Norris told the couple that the motel that
they were purchasing was a “goldmine” and a
“once in a lifetime chance.”
o The couple relied on this advice, following the
precedent set in the Shaddock v. Parramatta case.
The outcome (Norris v. Sibberas)
o The couple was awarded damages against Mrs
Norris because she owned a duty of care to
the couple.
o The Court of Appeal reversed this decision
because Mrs Norris was judged the property
on the grounds of her level of expertise.
o This is because there must be a close
relationship between the two parties for
negligence to exist.
1. a) What was the negligent advice
given in the Norris vs Sibberas case?
The negligent advice given in this case was
claimed to be from Mr and Mrs Sibberas' real
estate agent, Mrs Norris. Mrs Norris stated
that the motel she was selling was a
"goldmine" and a "once in a lifetime chance",
which was proven to not be the case.
b) What did the judge decided in this
case?
While the trial court decided Mrs Norris owed a
duty of care to Mr and Mrs Sibberas because
they had relied on her advice, the Court of
Appeal reversed the decision.
c) In what way was the trial judge in
Norris vs. Sibberas relying on the
Shaddock v. Parramatta case?
The judge in Noris v Sibberas was relying on
the precedent set in Shaddock v Parramatta
due to the similarities in the cases - both
regarding a duty of care owed by the advice
giver to the advice receiver.
d) Why did the Court of Appeal
reverse the decision of the original
precedent?
The Court of Appeal found Mrs Norris did not
have special financial skills or expertise and was
therefore not to be held accountable for the
Sibberas' decision to buy the motel.
Langridge v. Levy (1837)
o Father bought a gun for use for himself and
his sons.
o The father was told by the seller that it was
made by a famous gun maker and he
guaranteed safety of the gun.
o One of his son had his arm mutilated from an
explosion in the second barrel.
The outcome (Langridge v. Levy)
o The son couldn’t make a claim because he did not
purchase the gun so he wasn’t legally in the
contract
o The courts decided that because the son wasn’t
in the contract so he wouldn’t be successful but
the seller would have to pay some sort of
compensation.
o The court ruled that the seller must pay
compensation because a type of fraud had been
committed. The seller knew the gun was faulty
and made a false claim.
Winterbottom v. Wright (1842)
o A mail deliver driver had been injured in a fall
from a coach as a result of the coach being
faulty.
o The post-mail general had a contract with the
supplier that the general would keep the
coaches safe.
o The injury was caused from a breach of
contract.
The outcome (Winterbottom v. Wright)
o The driver claimed compensation from the
post-master general.
o The court decided that he would not be
successful because he was part of the initial
contract between the post-master general
and the supplier.
o The court looked back at the Langridge v.
Levy case but distinguished that in this case
there was no fraud committed like there was
in Langridge v. Levy.
George v. Skivington (1869)
o The man bought shampoo for his wife.
o His wife suffered loss of hair and a scalp
disorder.
o The wife was not involved in the contract so
was not able to make a claim against the
shampoo company.
The outcome (George v. Skivington)
o The court said that the duty under contract
should extend to those who to whom the
seller knew would be using the product.
o One judge substituted the word negligence for
fraud and maintained the circumstances were
close enough to the Langridge v. Levy case to
follow the same decision.
4. How did George v. Skivington
follow the Langridge v. Levy case?
The George v. Skivington case follows the
Langridge v. Levy case because the plaintiff was
successful on the grounds that the
manufacturer knew the product was made
negligently and was going to be used by
someone other than the purchaser.
Heaven v. Pender (1883)
o In this case, a ship’s painter (Heaven) was
injured when the ships platform collapsed
because it was faulty.
o The painter was employed by Gray who had
a contract with the ships owner (Pender).
o Pender had a contract with Gray to supply a
platform but did not have a contract with
Gray.
The outcome (Heaven v. Pender)
o In this case there was no act of fraud so the
precedent set in the Langridge v. Levy case did
not apply.
o The case was however seen similar to Heaven v.
Pender because the supplier knew that it would
used by someone not part of the contract.
o The plaintiff was successful because a duty of
care was owed to the person who was using the
platform, especially if it was an employee.
5. What was the relevance of Heaven
v. Pender?
The relevance of the Heaven v. Pender case
was obiter dictum. Which is general
obligation of duty of care.