Analysis : Road And Traffic Authority Of New South Wales V Dederer

Legal research is not only about discovering how the law applies, it is also about determining how strong case is. Using legal research we are analyzing strength and weaknesses of client’s case, and using counteranalysis we determine how opponent can use weaknesses against us. In this paper we will establish why counteranalysis is important and why do we use it, when we use it and where we can apply it.

The judges considered the effect of the severity of the risk by mentioning Shellharbour City Council v Johnson, which states that where the harm posed by an obvious risk is serious, an unreasonable response to the risk results in a breach of duty of care. It was found that the bollard created a ‘real and significant hazard for cyclists.’ On these factors, the judges found that the respondent’s response to the risk was not reasonable.

Bulsey & Anor v State of Queensland [2015] QCA 187 signified the requirements of legal justifications when conducting unwarranted arrests, and further expresses the importance of the right to personal liberty as it is ‘the most fundamental of the human rights recognised under the common law.’ It was evident to the Judges that at least one officer held reasonable suspicion that “the suspect” had committed an indictable offence, but the lawfulness of the arrest was inevitably questioned as to whether an officer with reasonable suspicion was the arresting officer. The judgements in favour of the appellants heightens the need for officers to use their powers within the ‘confines of the law’ when ‘forcibly arrest[ing] and detaining’ a person as to preserve the right to personal liberty, for once this right is left in the power of any authority, to imprison arbitrarily whomever they suspect, ‘there would soon be an end of all other rights and immunities.’

Police officers including approximately six armed members of the “Special Emergency Response Team” forcibly entered the appellants’ (Bulsey & Anor) house. Bulsey was taken from his bed, placed on the floor, handcuffed and dragged out to the street and later charged with riotous assembly and destruction of a building. In subsequent committal proceedings, the respondent conceded it did not have a case against the first appellant. He was discharged. Bulsey (the first appellant) sued the respondent for damages for trespass to the person (assault, battery and false imprisonment). Anor (the second appellant) sued the respondent for damages for assault and false imprisonment. The trial judge dismissed the appellants’ claims with costs, with judgments in favour of the respondent.

Applying Four common law criteria in this case study assessment was done as per the following:

Parties to the Case, Facts of the Case, and Business Reasons for the Dispute (30 points)

Your managing partner has handed you the Supreme Court of Queenslands’ decision in The Public Trustee of Queensland and Anor v Meyer and Ors [2010] QSC 291 and asked you to answer the following questions. You should assume you are answering questions for someone who has not read the case, so be sure to provide sufficient detail in your answers. You do not need to provide reference details for Part A of the assignment.

2. Mohamed Haneef Case. 2014. Mohamed Haneef Case. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/lawcouncil/ [Accessed 21 August 2014].

This reading is about a case happened in 1988 and arguments of the case based on different points of view.

This paper examines the development and scope of accessory liability under the second limb of Barnes v Addy as it stands in both England and Australia. As to the law in England, the focus will be on the rearticulation of the principle of accessory liability under the second limb as stated in Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan. In particular, it will consider the extent to which the decision has reconciled inconsistencies in earlier authority and remedied those issues propounded to be inherent in the traditional formulation of the principle. At this stage, this traditional principle remains good law in Australia. However, as suggested in Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd, there is potential for the

(b) R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame Ltd (No.1) [1990] AC 85 and (No.2) [1991] 1 AC 603

Almost immediately, his head struck a fully submerged rock and he became a quadriplegic. He brought this action for damages in respect of the injuries he suffered, claiming that the Board was negligent in that, it failed to give any or any adequate warning that the ledge was unsafe for diving when it knew or ought to have known that it formed a natural platform which members of the public would assume to be suitable for diving, and that his injuries resulted from this breach of duty.

To critically evaluate the impact of the cases R v Bugmy and R v Munda on the existing case law.

Law and economics is an interdisciplinary field that applies economic theory to examine the formation and the impact of tort law and the tort damages. It focuses mainly on deterrence, paying little attention to justice, fairness, or distribution. It is a tool to assess the costs and benefits that UCC was looking as an outcome of setting up a plant in India - Union Carbide India Ltd (UCIL) - a subsidiary of the Union Carbide Corporation (UCC). We need to determine who bears the burden of the injury and if this injury caused by UCC are compensable to what extent. Two important forms of tort law, which can be used to analyze, are Positivistic Economics and the Normative Economics. Positive economics describes how legal rules influence

In this essay we will discuss the process of legal research, writing, and analysis. The subject matter will be presented in a clear, concise and objective manner. The textbook that we will be referencing is "Gilbert Law Summaries: Legal Research, Writing, and Analysis" 10th ed, BarBri Group, 2006.