11. Briefly explain the test established by the High Court of Australia in the case of L Shaddock & Associates Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council [No 1] (1981) 150 CLR 225. Students' answers should be a paraphrasis along these lines: The giving of careless advice that leads to economic loss is known as negligent misstatement. This is an aspect of the law of negligence of direct relevance to accountants, auditors, financial advisers, investment consultants, travel agents and anyone who regularly gives advice to clients. If the defendant gives advice to the plaintiff they will owe a duty of care to the plaintiff if three criteria are met: 1. The advice was of a business or serious nature. 2. The defendant knew or should have known that the plaintiff intended to rely on the advice. 3. It was reasonable in the circumstances for the plaintiff to rely on the defendant's advice. (...and/or...) In L Shaddock v Parramatta City Council, the court explained that a person owes a duty of care in relation to the provision of advice or information where: (1) the person carries on a business or profession; (2) in the course of that business or profession, the person provides advice or information of a kind which requires skill and competence, or in relation to which they profess to possess skill and competence; and (3) the person knows or ought to know that the recipient intends to act or rely on it. The court also explained that liability for negligent misstatement was not confined to those who carry on a profession, business or occupation involving the giving of advice. James, Nickolas. Business Law, 5th Edition, Wiley, 2019, pages 212-213