Abstract. There Have Been More And More Claims Made By

The Civil Liabilities Act 2002 defines negligence as a failure on the part of the defendant which results in the harm of the plaintiff which could have been prevented by taking reasonable care. The breach of duty must be foreseeable, Sullivan v Moody. The risk must be not insignificant, and a reasonable person under similar circumstances would have taken precaution against the harm. In this case

The case was brought forward to the NSW Supreme Court in 2001 whereby Judge Hulme ordered both Respondents as negligent. This decision was reversed by the Supreme Court of Appeal whereby the judgement was granted in favour of the Respondents. This case affirms the previous decision.

The appellant company (Youyang) was trustee of a discretionary trust formed in 1974 for the Hayward family. Minter Ellison Morris Fletcher’s (Minters) had been acting for EC Consolidated Capital Limited (ECCCL) since July 1991, all work in connection with the drafting of the documents relating to the subscription for preference shares in ECCCL was dealt with by Minters. As part of the subscription agreement Youyang deposited $500,000 in Minters trust account. Minters was entitled to release a section of the fund from the trust account to ECCCL for the purchase of a bearer deposit certificate to be issued by Dresdner International Financial Markets (Australia) Ltd (DAL), which could then be traded on the money market. When the certificate was obtained Minters then had the right to release the remainder of the funds to ECCCL based on the subscription agreement.

There are two defences to an action in negligence: contributory negligence and voluntary assumption of risk. (FoBL, 2005, p83) This case only involves contributory negligence.

The Plaintiff contests that orders to restrain the Plaintiff’s land use [8] by Pain J in the Land and Environment Court of NSW in 2005 constituted the ‘violation of correct legal procedures’ [14] and hence professional negligence, because the case was previously dismissed by Lloyd J [5].

The difference between common intention constructive trusts and proprietary estoppel has been described as ‘illusory’ (Hayton). Do you agree with this statement? Consider how the case law has developed and give reasons for your answer.

“A factor, by itself, may not be sufficient to cause injury but if, with other factors, it materially contributes to causing injury, it is clearly a cause of injury.”. This quote, stated by Lord Salmon in McGhee v National Coal Board is an example of the difficulty that can arise when determining if a defendant had materially contributed to the plaintiff 's injury when the medical evidence is inconclusive. It is argued that the material contribution test has changed the path of the law and as we will see when analysing both McGhee and Fairchild, it has blurred the distinction between legal and factual causation.

Next are the Options proceedings. This proceeding relates more to the transactions made by the directors for their own benefits as well for the ones associated to them. The specific parties in this proceedings are; Environinvest Ltd, James Patrick Downey the liquidator of the company, and S.T.Y. (Afforestation) Pty Ltd as the plaintiffs. Roger Neil Pescott, Caroline Pescott, Euan Pescott, Blackburne Pty Ltd, Brabourne Pty Ltd, Mt Ross Pastoral Pty Ltd, Eurambeen Pty Ltd, Maridale (Victoria) Pty Ltd, Carnac Pty Ltd, Clive Randal Dossetor and Grant Anthony Robertson as the list of defendants.

Case Comment: John Michael Malins v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2017] EWHC 835 (Admin) 2017 WL 01339062

Thus, whilst the duty of loyalty was probably breached, this was not a basis to disqualify the solicitor from acting.

Was a duty of care owed by The State Of Victoria upon Mr. Ragnarr Loobrok to prevent economic loss due to loss of opportunity?

This essay will discuss the Supreme Court decision in FHR European Ventures LLP and others v Cedar Capital Partners LLC (Cedar) . The issue in this case was whether a bribe or secret commission accepted by an agent is held on constructive trust for his principal. This topic is a “relentless and seemingly endless debate” , as Sir Terence Etherton described, and that the “remedy awarded has vacillated for the last 200-odd years” . The major reason for the debate is because the principal will have propriety claim as opposed to a mere equitable compensation, if the bribe or commission is held on a constructive trust . The principal will be in a much more advantageous position if he was held to have propriety

Torts of negligence are breaches of duty that results to injury to another person to whom the duty breached is owed. Like all other torts, the requirements for this are duty, breach of duty by the defendant, causation and injury(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). However, this form of tort differs from intentional tort as regards the manner the duty is breached. In torts of negligence, duties are breached by negligence and not by intent. Negligence is conduct that falls below the standard of care established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). The standard measure of negligence is the universal reasonable person standard. The assumption in this case is that a reasonable

The impact of Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1989] EWCA Civ 5 on the doctrine of consideration.

| * David should not disclose confidential information outside the firm. * If he seeks advice from his friend Peter, he will breach S140.1 & S140.5. * Peter can trade this information to benefit him – affecting MAL.