Do Blog Post on the case of Carmody v Priestley & Morris Perth Pty Ltd (2005) 30 WAR 318.

Your blog post must be written in clear and concise language that is appropriate for a business audience, and must demonstrate your ability to apply relevant legal concepts and principles to analyse and solve the case study.Strong answers will include original research: for example, a case or two, references to the texts, relevant journal articles or news reports. Do NOT address any legislation.

For the blog post, we would like you to clearly explain the implications from the case for our accountants working on tax and related matters considering the legal concepts relating to the scope of a duty of care owed by professionals to clients (including for advice provided beyond their retainer). Some of our staff are a little lackluster, so the more engaging the better.

Thepurpose of this is to help you understand and communicate the implications of the caseCarmody v Priestley & Morris Perth Pty Ltd(2005) 30 WAR 318on professionals in terms of professional negligence, specifically focusing on theSCOPEof aprofessional's duty of careowed to their clients. The case highlights the importance of understanding when an accountant or other professional adviser might be required to offer advice or give a warning about a risk at their own initiative, even if the client has not specifically asked about it.

concentrate on the implications for professionals (such as accountants and tax advisors) fromCarmody v Priestley & Morris Perth Pty Ltd(2005) 30 WAR 318 as they relate to thescope of a duty of careowed by such professionals to their clients:

Do NOT discuss other issues likebreach of duty, causation and duty more broadly, unless and to the extent necessary (if at all) to explainthe central scope of the duty of careissue. The focus is on scope of a professional's duty of care, with that case acting as precedent for future situations involving applicable fact scenarios.