Case Analysis: Carey V Lake Macquarie City Council

4. Rationale: This is a very important part of the case brief. You must explain the gist of the court ruling, (i.e., why the court arrived at its holding). The appeals court found Grant and Gray owed the following legal duty of care, including:

Duty of Care: best interest; defensible decision making; contextualising behaviour; identification of positive and negative risks

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

Precedents have played a significant role construction and transformation public policy over time. The concern that judges face is whether establishing a new duty of care will influence public policy. This is the issue that results from in the Cooper v. Hobart case. The judge constructed a final decision that Hobart did not owe a duty of care to Cooper due to explanations that are delineated in public policy. This essay will discuss in favour of the judge’s decision for the reason that establishing a new duty of care would have conflicted with existing public policy. Initially, I will be providing a concise summary about the case of Cooper v Hobart. This involves the facts, issues and ratio. Then, I will elucidate what the Anns test is

For the purpose of this report, a visit to the Melbourne Magistrate's Court was made on 22nd March, 2016. On this day, the second day of a four day committal hearing was heard regarding the matter of Omer Cicekdag, presided over by Magistrate Ann Collins.

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.

To sum up, based on the law of negligence, the issues and precedents, Rebecca could win this case by legal process. Because the defendant ‘Zorba’s’ Restaurant owns a duty of care to Rebecca, the restaurant has breached that duty of care;

MILLERSBURG — A local man who admittedly filmed coworkers using an employee bathroom now faces the potential of local jail time.

The case of Mabo decision with Queensland government was one of the most significant legal case in Australia, which recognised the land rights and the original ownership of Murray islanders in the Torres Strait. It was acting by Murray islanders and the High Court upheld. Based on the successful legal case, there are some key issues in the process for Indigenous’ land rights, which were changed in Australia law and affect future rulings in Australia, such as the Native Title ruling of the Aboriginal people’s land rights after the High Court passed the Act in 1993; in addition, due to this alteration of Australian laws, it not only had a big impact of Murray islanders but also on some other groups of Aboriginal people’s land rights reform.

Case 1 is an appeal to the conviction rendered by District Court Judge Bradley on

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.

Last of all, Cost of avoiding harm needs to be taken into account. The argument that a danger was too costly to eliminate is not a legitimate argument. However courts do recognise a balance between the risk and the cost of eliminating it. If the risk is remote and the precautions needed to be taken are very expensive, the defendants lack of action by not doing anything may be justified. The greater the risk is and the more likely it is, the consideration is given towards the cost of the eliminating measures which the defendants may have taken to safeguard. The decision in these circumstances relies on whether the courts decide that the defendants had acted reasonable in the given

Facts: Plaintiffs Carl and Elaine Miles, owners and impresarios of “Blackie, The Talking Cat” brought a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the S.D. Georgia, challenging the constitutionality of the Augusta, GA, Business License Ordinance. They complained that the ordinance was inapplicable in their case “accepting contributions from pedestrian in the downtown Augusta area, who wanted to hear the cat speak “and that the ordinance violates the rights of speech. The Plaintiffs attacked the ordinance as being unconstitutional and overbroad in contravention of the due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

My views mirror the majority opinion on this case, because I thought the regulation decree was unconstitutional. I do believe that a city may have an interest in passing laws diminishing behavior for the public's health and safety. Nonetheless, I do not think this was the case; the law was not constricted enough in Pinellas Park. It did not include all sensible exemptions, and it definitely didn't target only events most likely to end up in crime. Rather, I think Pinella Park was doing the contrary; the unorthodox opinion, on the other hand, felt that the regulation decree was constitutional. They thought it was reasonable, also pointing out that I, along with the majority, interpreted the law too strictly than it was actually. Furthermore, the minority judge did not agree that minors had the right to assembly in public places during late hours, the judge demanded there had to be an adult with them.

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