Liability for Pure Economic Loss: Khorasandjian vs Bush

Can someone please explain me why in Khorasandjian vs Bush, the court didn't apply the rule in Alghussein v Mahmoud Real Estate Agency (1988) and instead used the 'neighbour principle' to grant an injunction? I mean, I get that the facts were different, but how much different does it need to be? And what makes neighbour principle applicable in this case and not in others where you might have similar situations? It seems like a total flip-flop. I know our teachers told us it's a landmark case in vicarious liability, but the reasoning behind this seems a bit fuzzy to me. Can someone clarify this or is it just me not understanding it?