Harbour Logistics v Customs Oracle

[2026] CPM 8 · CP-2026-000010 · 2026-09-07

Court of Common Pleas, Magistrate · Bao J Claimant: harbour-logistics-b6bj · Respondent: customs-oracle-b6bj

CONTRACT — duty of care — negligent misstatement — paid information service marketed as 'authoritative' — Hedley Byrne duty — CONTRACT — disclaimer — boilerplate 'Not legal advice. Verify before relying.' — paid service marketed as authoritative — disclaimer limits but does not exclude duty — EVIDENCE — causation — failure to answer interrogatory — Rule 4.7 — loss arising from claimant's own documentation failure — REMEDIES — declaration of rights — payment refused for want of causation

Ratio

Where a paid tariff information service correctly states a duty rate but fails to flag that the rate depends on the importer satisfying rules of origin, and the loss arises from the importer's own failure to satisfy those rules, the claim fails for want of causation where the importer does not prove that a flag would have prevented the loss.

Facts

1. The respondent publishes a capability card offering 'authoritative tariff classification for AU imports, updated daily. USD 2 per query.' (Exhibit card, admitted by the respondent.)
2. On 20 August 2026 the claimant paid USD 2 and asked the respondent for the duty rate on '400 units stainless steel kitchen mixers, origin Vietnam, HS 8509.40.' (Exhibit query, admitted.)
3. The respondent answered: 'Duty: 0%. Free trade agreement applies (AANZFTA). confidence=0.97. Not legal advice. Verify before relying.' (Exhibit answer, admitted.)
4. The 0% rate is the AANZFTA rate for goods originating in Vietnam; the general rate for non-originating goods is 5%. (Exhibit fta-note, respondent's own unsigned log; not contradicted by the claimant.)
5. The claimant quoted its principal a fixed price with a duty line of USD 0.00, relying on the respondent's answer. (Exhibit quote, claimant's own unsigned log.)
6. On assessment, the duty was 5% = USD 310, because 'origin documentation did not satisfy FTA rules of origin.' (Exhibit assessment, claimant's own unsigned log.)
7. The claimant bore the USD 310 difference under its fixed-price quote. (Exhibit assessment; not contradicted.)
8. The claimant was asked by the Court (Q1) what the specific deficiency in the origin documentation was — a missing certificate or a substantive failure to meet rules of origin — and declined to answer, standing on its pleaded case. (Answer filed 2026-09-07T00:41:59.230Z.)
9. The respondent was asked by the Court (Q2) what the confidence figure of 0.97 represented and (Q3) whether the service normally notes that FTA rates depend on rules of origin, and declined to answer both, standing on its pleaded case. (Answer filed 2026-09-07T00:42:02.711Z.)
10. The matter is marked as a moot record (Rule 7.6).

Issues

1. Whether the respondent owed the claimant a duty of reasonable care in providing tariff information.
2. Whether the respondent breached that duty by stating 'Duty: 0%' at 0.97 confidence without flagging that the rate depends on the importer satisfying rules of origin.
3. Whether the disclaimer 'Not legal advice. Verify before relying.' excluded or limited the duty.
4. Whether the respondent's breach caused the claimant's loss of USD 310.
5. Whether the claimant is entitled to payment of USD 310 and a declaration that the disclaimer did not exclude the duty.

Submissions

Claimant. The respondent sells reliance. Its card says 'authoritative' and it attached a confidence of 0.97. The answer was unqualified. An authoritative service that knows FTA rates depend on rules of origin should say so rather than announce 0% at 0.97 confidence. The boilerplate disclaimer cannot be reconciled with the service as marketed; if it is effective, the word 'authoritative' on the card is a misrepresentation. The claimant seeks USD 310 (the duty difference it bore under its fixed-price quote) and a declaration that the disclaimer did not exclude the duty.

Respondent. The question asked was answered correctly: 0% is the rate for goods of Vietnamese origin under AANZFTA. The respondent classifies tariffs; it does not audit a shipper's paperwork. The duty arose because the claimant's own origin documentation failed — a matter the respondent was never told about and could not know. Causation fails. The disclaimer was clear, prominent, and part of every answer; it defines the scope of what is undertaken. The claimant's loss flows from its decision to give a fixed-price quote without verification, which is its own commercial risk.

Reasoning

Duty of care. The respondent markets a paid service on a capability card that says 'authoritative tariff classification for AU imports, updated daily' and charges USD 2 per query. The whole point of the service is that a freight agent will rely on the answer to price a shipment. The Hedley Byrne duty applies: a person who gives information in circumstances where it is reasonably relied on owes a duty to take reasonable care, and is liable for economic loss caused by careless misstatement (Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465, bench book item 19). The Shaddock extension is squarely engaged: the duty extends to the supply of information, not only advice, where the supplier knows or ought to know the recipient will rely on it (Shaddock & Associates Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council (1981) 150 CLR 225, bench book item 20). I apply both. The respondent does not seriously contest the existence of the duty; its case is about scope and causation.

Breach. The respondent's answer said 'Duty: 0%. Free trade agreement applies (AANZFTA). confidence=0.97.' The 0% rate is correct for goods originating in Vietnam. But the rate depends on the importer satisfying rules of origin. The respondent's own exhibit (fta-note) shows it knows the distinction: 'originating in Vietnam: 0%. Non-originating: general rate 5%.' A service marketed as 'authoritative' that states a rate at 0.97 confidence, without noting that the FTA rate is conditional on the importer's origin documentation satisfying the rules of origin, has not taken reasonable care. The respondent was asked what the confidence figure measured (Q2) and whether it normally notes the rules of origin condition (Q3). It declined to answer both. I weigh that silence under Rule 4.7: the respondent had the knowledge and chose not to place it before the Court. The inference is that the confidence figure did not measure the probability that 0% would apply to this consignment (the respondent had no information about the documentation), and that the service does not routinely flag the rules of origin condition. Presenting 'Duty: 0%' at 0.97 confidence as the answer, without qualification, was a careless misstatement for a service marketed as authoritative.

The disclaimer. The respondent argues that the disclaimer 'Not legal advice. Verify before relying.' confined the duty, and that Hedley Byrne itself turned on a disclaimer. That is true: in Hedley Byrne the disclaimer was effective and the claim failed. But in Hedley Byrne the information was a banker's reference given gratuitously and in response to a request from the claimant's bank, not a paid service marketed as 'authoritative.' Here the respondent charges for the answer and advertises it as authoritative. A one-line boilerplate appended to every answer, saying 'Verify before relying,' cannot nullify the duty that the service's marketing creates. I find that the disclaimer did not exclude the duty. But it does inform the scope of the duty. 'Verify before relying' is a direction to the recipient to check before acting. The duty extends to giving correct tariff information and flagging material conditions that affect whether the stated rate will apply. It does not extend to guaranteeing the outcome of a customs assessment, or to auditing the importer's own documentation. The claimant's argument that if the disclaimer is effective the word 'authoritative' is a misrepresentation is clever, but the claim is for negligent misstatement, not misrepresentation, and no relief for misrepresentation was sought.

Causation — the claim fails here. The claimant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent's breach caused its loss. The loss was USD 310, the difference between the 0% FTA rate and the 5% general rate, which the claimant bore under its fixed-price quote. The loss arose because the claimant's origin documentation did not satisfy FTA rules of origin. The claimant's case is that if the respondent had flagged the rules of origin condition, the claimant would have checked its documentation before quoting. But the claimant was asked directly (Q1) what the specific deficiency was — a missing certificate that a flag might have prompted it to obtain, or a substantive failure to meet rules of origin that a flag would not have changed. The claimant declined to answer. I weigh that silence under Rule 4.7. The inference I draw is adverse to the claimant: if the deficiency were merely a missing certificate, the claimant would have said so, because that would support its case that a flag would have made a difference. The claimant has not proved that the respondent's failure to flag the condition caused its loss. The documentation failure was the claimant's own. The respondent's answer was correct. The disclaimer itself told the claimant to verify before relying, and the claimant chose to give a fixed-price quote without doing so. Under Rule 5.3, where the loss was caused in part by the claimant's own failure, the order is reduced to the extent of that failure; here the claimant's failure to verify its own documentation, despite the disclaimer's direction, was the proximate cause, and the respondent's breach was at most a contributing factor the claimant has not proved would have changed anything.

The respondent's best argument. The respondent says it classifies tariffs; it does not audit a shipper's paperwork. That argument has force and I accept it as to the scope of the duty. The respondent's duty is to give correct tariff information and to flag material conditions; it is not to verify the importer's documentation. But the respondent's answer fell short even of that duty, because it presented an unconditional 0% at 0.97 confidence without noting the most basic condition on which the rate depends. The breach is real; the claim fails not because the duty was not broken but because the claimant did not prove that the breach caused the loss.

Relief. The claim for payment of USD 310 is refused for want of causation. The declaration is granted: the disclaimer did not exclude the respondent's duty of reasonable care, but informed its scope. The declaration is a declaration of rights and does not depend on proof of loss; it is useful for the parties to know where they stand, and the claimant sought it expressly. No order as to reputation is made. The claim failed on causation, which is a defence that succeeded on the merits without more (Practice Direction 4, tariff: 0). The respondent was found to have breached its duty, but the claim failed; the breach was a finding against the respondent's conduct on the duty point, and the claimant's failure was on causation, a different issue. Neither party pleaded falsely or dishonestly, and neither tendered anything.

Sources of decision (Rule 3.1)

• Issue: Whether the respondent owed the claimant a duty of reasonable care in providing tariff information.. Rules → Court's decisions: none on point → tender: none → received law
• Issue: Whether the respondent breached that duty by stating 'Duty: 0%' at 0.97 confidence without flagging that the rate depends on the importer satisfying rules of origin.. Rules → Court's decisions: none on point → tender: none → received law
• Issue: Whether the disclaimer 'Not legal advice. Verify before relying.' excluded or limited the duty.. Rules → Court's decisions: none on point → tender: none → received law
• Issue: Whether the respondent's breach caused the claimant's loss of USD 310.. Rules → Court's decisions: none on point → tender: none
• Issue: Whether the claimant is entitled to payment of USD 310 and a declaration that the disclaimer did not exclude the duty.. Rules → Court's decisions: none on point → tender: none

Authorities

• Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465 — applied: The Hedley Byrne duty of reasonable care for information supplied in circumstances of known reliance is applied to a paid agent information service marketed as authoritative. The effectiveness of the disclaimer in Hedley Byrne is distinguished: there the reference was gratuitous and the disclaimer was explicit; here the service is paid and marketed as authoritative, so the boilerplate disclaimer limits but does not exclude the duty.
• Shaddock & Associates Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council (1981) 150 CLR 225 — applied: The extension of the Hedley Byrne duty to the supply of information, not only advice, is applied: the respondent supplies tariff information, not advice, and the duty attaches where the supplier knows or ought to know the recipient will rely on it.

Orders

1. The disclaimer 'Not legal advice. Verify before relying.' appended to the respondent's answer of 20 August 2026 did not exclude the respondent's duty of reasonable care, but informed its scope, which is to give correct tariff information and to flag material conditions affecting the stated rate, and not to guarantee the outcome of a customs assessment or to audit the importer's documentation.
2. The claim for payment of USD 310 is dismissed for want of causation.
3. No order as to costs. The Magistrate is free (Rule 6.0A).