When the scenario deals with the concept of negligence, the case of Donoghue v Stevenson  will be applied. In this case, it was determined and the Court held that if due to the behavior of one person affects the welfare of another person, the aggrieved individual will be considered to be the neighbor. On the hand, the individual whose conduct or acts affect is said to owe a duty of care to the neighbor. Therefore, the tort of negligence defines the situation when an individual fails to exercise the duty of care towards the aggrieved person accounting to the principle of neighbor in this case. The duty of care can be breached in the situation when the defendant will have the authority to overlook the injury that was caused due to the activities of the defendant. However, there are a few essential components of negligence that should be proved when the scenario is regarding the claims of negligence. Firstly, the element of duty of care must be present. In this situation the defendant should owe a duty of care towards the plaintiff. Thereafter, he must also make sure that the care provided is consistent. It can be implied later that the defendant should undertake the probable ways to prohibit the injury that has been caused to the plaintiff because of his activities. Secondly, another component involved in the concept of negligence is breach of duty to take care. This element states that if the defendant has breached the first element of duty to take care and have caused harm to the plaintiff, will be held negligent. Thirdly, the component related to negligence is causation. This element explains that the plaintiff has been harmed and injured because of the actions of the defendant. The case of Cook v Cook  explained that the Court has set out the test of but for that established if the cause of the injury was a direct outcome of the actions of the defendant. However, for the acts of negligence, the loss was suffered by the plaintiff. If it did not occur in the first place then it would not have sustained the damages or have gone through any kind of losses. Lastly, the element involved with it is remoteness. The injury that was an indirect consequence of the activities of the defendant. However, it should not be too distant and the injury caused was determined in the case of Clyde Bergemann v Varley Power. Thus, economic loss can be caused due to negligence and economic loss can also be caused because of negligent words. The theory of negligent words causing economic loss arises in the case of Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd . In this particular case the rule was overturned and the Court had allowed for the upturn of pure loss that resulted in the use of negligent words. Therefore, in this specific case, the Courts had held that there was a chance of revival from the economic loss that was allowed only if the plaintiff proves that a duty of care existed between the defendant and the plaintiff.
For establishing if, the concept of duty of care exists or not, some of the factors should be followed. Firstly, vulnerability should be looked after if the plaintiff is not being able to pursue any kind of reasonable steps for averting the negligence that the defendant had committed, the defendant shall owe a duty of care. Thereafter, the Court can take into accounting the practical possibilities that are accessible to the plaintiff for prohibiting negligence. Control can be applied in a situation where the defendant is in a position for controlling the happening of the negligence, it will be treated as an owe of duty of care. Assumption of reliance refers to a situation where the defendant had knowledge that the plaintiff had relied on the responsibility of the defendant, he will be owing a duty of care.
As per the Australia Law, such situation arises where there is negligence claims for economic loss. In this scenario, it is usually observed that the plaintiff has suffered monetary loss but has not been injured physically. Generally, the Courts do not allow such scenario. The economic loss occurs when the plaintiff goes through a financial loss which outcomes in resulting a personal harm to the property. These financial losses consist of the loss of profitability and earnings.
Economic loss can also occur due to negligent acts. The Court had stated that such recovery could be made possible if the defendant had knowledge about the fact that because of negligent acts, economic loss will appear to the plaintiff instead of the general class of plaintiffs in the case of Gaskin v Ollerenshaw 
Based on the scenario, it can be observed from the facts that Peter attained the certificate from Wollongong Council. This was obtained in prior to acquire the block of land. Nevertheless, it was not mentioned by the Council that widening of the road will decrease the size of the block. Therefore, the certificate was not thorough enough for Peter to the purchase even if the road proposal was mentioned in the certificate related to the purchase. If there was no mentioning of the road proposal in the certificate then Peter will be left with no choice. He will be bound to purchase the land. Such a situation proves how vulnerable Peter was to take the necessary steps for averting the negligence caused by the Council. Therefore, the defendant will owe a duty to Peter as mentioned in the case of Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd. Thereafter, the Council had purchased the specific block of land while the certificate stated that the road widening proposal was allowed to Peter. Hence, Peter had faith on the certificate and relied on it since the Council because of which he did not go through the certificate approved it. Peter would have anyway purchased that particular land since Council did no mentioning about the proposal of road widening.
It can be concluded stating that the economic loss that have been suffered because of negligent omission committed by the Wollongong Council will be recovered to Peter.
Donoghue v Stevenson  UKHL 100, SC (HL) operations, AC 562
Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd  AC 465
Gaskin v Ollerenshaw 
Cook v Cook  HCA 73; (1986) 162 CLR 376
Clyde Bergemann v Varley Power