Case Study: Glass JA V San Sebastian

The New South Wales Court of Appeal decision in Minister Administering the Environmental and Planning Assessment Act 1979 v San Sebastian [1983] 2 NSWLR 268 portrays significant development in law regarding the negligence liability of public authorities in Australia. The case concerns the liability for economic losses experienced by numerous investors following the abandonment of a plan for the redevelopment of the Woolloomooloo in Sydney in 1972. Four of five judges of this case were in concurrence that no duty of care was owed in respect of either the preparation of the study or the continued adherence of the Study. Glass JA, one of the primary Justices claimed that “ …the foreseeability inquiry at the duty, breach and remoteness stages raises different issues which …show more content…
These risks, damages or harm are what the defendant is liable for. We will be looking at the analysis Glass JA makes in relation to duty, breach and proximity/remoteness and its application to personal injury in the tort of negligence.

Foreseeability Duty:
A defendant will only owe a duty of care to the plaintiff if it is reasonably foreseeable. The modern concept of duty of care was born by Lord Atkin in Donoghue v Stevenson , in which the duty of care was limited to guarding against person injury and property damage. This was only in cases where such injury or damage was, or ought to have been, within the reasonable contemplation of the defendant. Moreover, in Cook v Cook, the court suggested that the normal standard for