Case Analysis: Mitchell V Glasgow City Council [2009] Ukhl 11; [2009]

State of New South Wales v Lepore [2003] 212 CLR 511, 536 per Gleeson CJ.

The hearing was commenced on Tuesday, 7 October 2014 at the Land and Environment Court 3A, Windeyer Chambers 225 Macquarie Street, Sydney. It was led by Commissioner Dixon.

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].

UNIT 5 - INTRODUCTION TO DUTY OF CARE IN HEALTH, SOCIAL CARE OR CHILDREN’S AND YOUNG PEOPLE’S SETTINGS ASSIGNMENT OVERVIEW In this assignment, you will demonstrate your understanding of what is meant by the term ‘duty of care’. You will consider the types of dilemma that you may arise in adult social care work, and find out where to get advice and support to handle these. You will look at how to respond to complaints, making sure you know and follow agreed procedures. TASKS There are three tasks to this assignment. TASK 1 2 3 TASK 1 1. Identify the following requirements when dealing with complaints. • Legal EVIDENCE Short answer questions Letter Case studies OUTCOMES 3.1, 3.2 1.1, 1.2 2.1, 2.2

In certain situations, a duty of care is owed to another person. For example, a surgeon owes a duty of care to whoever they operate on. The existence of a duty of care is established by the Neighbour Test which was brought in by Lord Aitken after the Donoghue v Stevenson case;

Legal citation of the case: Regina v Bilal Skaf; Regina v Mohammed Skaf [2006] NSWSC 394, 28 July 2006 AND amendment to this decision with the appeal: R v Skaf & Skaf [2008] NSWCCA 303, 17 December 2008

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

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.

Clegg case is the most recent and instructive dissertation on this vexed issue. The presiding judge, Justice Hoeben, referred to the previous case of Kilpatrick. There Foster J indicated that the obligations of the Tribunal are clearly satisfied if, in approaching the question of excessiveness, it has regard to matters in paragraphs (a) and following, in

‘“Occupier of the premises (defendant) owes the same duty of care, the common duty of care to all visitors”

Before 1932 there was no generalised duty of care in negligence. The tort did exist and was applied in particular situations where the courts had decided that a duty should be owed, eg, road accidents, bailments or dangerous goods. In Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562, Lord Atkin attempted to lay down a general principle which would cover all the circumstances where the courts had already held that there could be liability for negligence. He said:

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

This paper will be discussing the concept of strict liability along with the concept of absolute liability within the R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (1978). In doing so, this paper will explain how strict liability offences strike a good balance between the policy rationales for absolute liability in regulatory offences and the criminal law principle that only the morally blameworthy may be punished, and how the courts have interpreted absolute liability offence and their relationship with the Charter of Rights.

In Gregg v Scott, Mr. Malcolm Gregg (‘the claimant’), the House of Lords examined the law of negligence in the area of personal injury. In order for the claimant to have a successful claim in court, the onus to shifts to the claimant to demonstrate that a duty of care owed by the doctor, there was a breach of that duty, an injury was sustained, and the negligence on behalf of the doctor Dr. Andrew Scott (‘defendant’) was a cause of the ‘injury’. If these elements are not satisfied, the claimant may lose its entitlement to full compensation.

Despite the general principle excluding liability for omissions, liability may arise in certain exceptional circumstances. Although these situations where a duty may arise on the basis of an omission are difficult to classify, what is usually required in all of them is some element of proximity. This may be created in a number of situations which will now be looked at. In addition, in such cases, the factors for establishing a duty of care (forseeability, proximity, fair, just and reasonable) laid down in Caparo will also need to be looked at.