Sienna is a retired nurse who has $ 800,000 in retirement savings. Sienna asks Michelle, who is a financial planner, if it would be a good idea for her to invest $500,000 of her retirement funds in Shonky Investments Pty Ltd (hereafter 'Shonky Investments'). Sienna lacks commercial knowledge.

Michelle prepares legal advice addressed to Sienna stating that she has reviewed the 2019 company accounts and that it is a good investment. In this regard, the following wording was inserted into her financial advice:

"No responsibility is taken as to the accuracy of the information or advice given. Advice and information given is purely based on the 2019 company accounts reviewed and no other sources were consulted. The client is advised to seek independent advice regarding the workings of the investment scheme as Shonky Investments is new to the market although it does appear to have delivered high returns in the 2019 financial year."

Sienna was keen to boost her retirement savings and decided to invest with Shonky Investments based on Michelle's advice. She did not seek independent advice regarding the investment scheme. Shonky Investments has subsequently gone into liquidation as laws were subsequently passed deeming the business model upon which the investment scheme was based, illegal. Sienna has suffered a $500,000 loss. Sienna now discovers that financial planners in the industry would have been aware of the questionable business model that the investment scheme Shonky Investments Pty Ltd used as it was being discussed about in journals and financial newspapers at the time Michelle had given the advice.

On a separate note, Sienna's husband, Bill, is a developer who was keen to buy particular land in the Glenhurst region. He contacted the Local Council and enquired whether the land would potentially be affected by any Council road-widening proposals in the next two years. A Council representative who was new to the job stated that there was no such proposals when in fact, there was one which would affect the above-mentioned land. Bill purchased the land only to discover there was a road-widening proposal which lowered the value of the property and prevented the proposed redevelopment, which incurred him further heavy losses.

Bill further came across publicly exhibited plans for redevelopment of a separate inner-city area (Masiville) as a new office district, which were exhibited by the State Planning Authority. No feasibility study was attached to the plans. He subsequently purchased land in the Masiville area relying on these plans, which were ultimately abandoned three years later. Bill suffered heavy losses as he could not develop the land as he had hoped.

Advise Sienna and Bill whether they are likely to succeed under Tort Law. (15 marks)