Case Assignment : Court Of Appeal

1039 Words5 Pages
1000 words TABL ASSIGNMENT 1 CASE ASSIGNMENT (A) The Parties: (1.5 marks) (i) What are the names of the parties? The names of the parties involved are Mileva Novakovic, Michael Stekovic and Snezana Stekovic (ii) Who is the ‘appellant’? Who is the ‘respondent’? Mileva Novakovic is the appellant for this case as the court was not in her favour in the original case, making Michael Stekovic the first respondent and Snezana Stekovic the second respondent. (B) The Court (1.5 marks) (i) What is the name of the court? New South Wales Court of Appeal (ii) In which jurisdiction does the court operate? The Court of Appeal is part of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which holds unlimited original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction. The…show more content…
As the appellant saw the dog raised by the respondents, she retreated hastily and in the process slipped and fell. She believes that the respondents failed to take precautions to mitigate the risk of harm. The means for this case is dependant on whether or not the risk of injury was foreseeable and not significant. It also depends on whether or not the respondents have taken reasonable precaution to keep the dog away from the appellant if the two criteria are met. 2. KEY RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND CASE LAW PRINCIPLES - Does a statutory provision apply? Is there a specific answer? This case is based on the tort of negligence as the appellant feels that the respondent has not fulfilled the criteria for duty of care. As stated in the Civil Liability Act 2002(Cth) to determine if a person is not negligent it must be known if the risk was foreseeable and if the risk was not insignificant. If those two conditions were met in those circumstances, what precautions a reasonable person would have taken need to be considered and whether or not the respondent failed to do so. - Are there any similar cases/ interpreted any relevant statutory provisions (provide name/section of any relevant legislation and cases) Firstly, to determine whether or not the respondents are liable for the appellant’s
Open Document