ABSTRACT
Like the Irish jury that were unanimous that they could not agree, the High Court of Australia laboured mightily in Perre v Apand Pty Ltd2 before recognising lack of consensus or even a majority position about the essentials of the action in negligence for pure economic loss. Only Kirby J saw merit in the three stage framework favoured in England. Their Honours agreed that the animal exists. But proximity was rejected as a useful taxonomic guide. General reliance is no longer generally relied on by the hunters. The creature could not be identified by its foreseeability spots, but its known vulnerability was proposed as a working hypothesis.3
