Reference no: EM133255984

Case: Nazim is an accountant and operates an accounting consultancy business in Parramatta. Andy is a long-term client of Nazim and owns a small vegetable and fruit store. Kim is a good friend of Nazim and owns the famous family restaurant called 'Home Meals'. Nazim and Kim meet every Saturday to play soccer at the local club. Kim is thinking of getting a local supplier for her restaurant to save on transport costs and knows that Andy is a long-term client of Nazim. During one of their soccer sessions, Kim asks Nazim whether he thinks it would be a good idea to appoint Andy as the sole supplier of vegetables and fruits for 'Home Meals'. Nazim is in the middle of the game and replies, 'well... nothing wrong with his financials as far as I can say'. However, he hurriedly adds, ' You know I cannot talk about my clients without their permission. Why don't you ask Andy for his financial records for the last three years? You can check for yourself'. Kim gets a call the next day to book her restaurant each week for the next six months. In order to make sure there is a steady supply of fresh products, Kim contacts Andy and offers him a one-year supplier contract without checking the financial records. Andy accepts the offer, and Kim removes all the other suppliers from his list. Andy has been thinking of expanding his business recently and visits Nazim to get his advice on the monthly forecast of profits for his business for the next three years. Nazim has been very busy with the end of the financial year work and has been working 18 hours a day during the last two months. Nazim glances through the document given by Andy and dictates the letter of advice to Andy over his lunch. His letter confirms that there will be steady profits for the next three years and that there is no reason to delay the expansion project. However, while glancing through the documents, Nazim missed an essential document regarding business sales, resulting in highly overstated profit forecast figures. As a result, Andy's business expansion completely fails, and the business is closed immediately. Kim struggles to find a new supplier and has to cancel more than ten bookings due to the shortage of fresh products.

Does Nazim owe a duty of care to Kim and/or Andy? Explain your answer by making reference to relevant case law.