TUTORIAL 14 – WRITTEN OPINION
TO : ALEC DAWSON
FROM : KAREN REBECCA EDWARDS
RE : LEGAL EAGLES
Summary of Facts
I am asked by the owner of The Friday Shop and the owners of the apartments (Claimants) to write an opinion to establish if they are able to claim for damages from Boutique Bugs (Defendant) for the amount of $1,100,000 based on the elements of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.
Rylands v Fletcher (R v. F) is based on the doctrine of Strict Liability. This means that the defendant is liable for all damages caused by engaging in hazardous of dangerous activities. Blackburn J at 279 states “We think that the true rule of the law is, that the personal who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there
…show more content…
Some activities are suitable in some areas and not in others, for instance blasting in the midst of a large city carries extraordinary risks but not in remote areas.
It is in my opinion that Boutique Bugs have met the element of “non-natural” use of land and “for its purposes”, where in this case is for the economic benefit of Boutique Bugs and is therefore liable in this instance.
Mischief when it escapes (Escaping Substances Doctrine)
I would refer to “escape” in this case as it was referred to in R v. F. Blackburn J in his ruling mentions that an element of control “keep it in his peril” to mitigate damages in the event of escape. This clearly states that the defendant has full liability for damages regardless of how the dangerous item escapes (element of Strict Liability). Therefore Boutique Bugs is responsible for both the escapes i.e escape from the research facility as well as from the accident.
The defence might argue that the context in which “escape” is used commented by Lord Macmillan in obiter in Read v Lyon is “where the defendant has occupation or, or control over, land to a place which is outside his occupation and control”.
Did Boutique Bugs have control over the escape of the bugs? Was the escape of bugs foreseeable?
1. The escape of borer bugs by eating through the plastic containers
State of New South Wales v Lepore [2003] 212 CLR 511, 536 per Gleeson CJ.
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.
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.
7. The Taylors bought an ocean front lot in Oregon. The next year, Staley bought an ocean front lot south of the Taylors and built a home on it. Over the years, Staley often expressed concern that when the Taylors built their house, they could block her view. They said they would not. When they began planning their home, they asked Staley to submit a letter in support of a setback variance they sought. She said she would as long as her view wasn’t blocked. They again told her it wouldn’t be blocked. When the house was built, it partially blocked her view. She sued for breach of an
The Plaintiff is claiming $35 million from the State of NSW, which is purported to be vicariously liable for the Land and Environment Court and Pain J [1]. This claim includes nullifying Pain J’s judgment [14], and it is accompanied by Motions to uphold Lloyd J’s dismissal and refund the Plaintiff’s filing fees [2].
be described. Jurisdictional requirements for this case as well as the reasons why it was heard at
The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, and the decision is described as follows:
obtaining land for public use, but was to prevent harm to the public. The Court
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
Parties to the Case, Facts of the Case, and Business Reasons for the Dispute (30 points)
Analyze Luxford & Anor v Sidhu & 3 others [2007] NSWSC 1356 (3 December 2007) as follows:
This case study is based on Environinvest Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed)(in liquidation) vs Roger Neil Pescott & Ors (2012) and Environinvest Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (in liquidation) vs Blackburne Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (2012).
(b) R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame Ltd (No.1) [1990] AC 85 and (No.2) [1991] 1 AC 603
Barnes, separately, had commenced proceedings in the District Court of NSW. Both proceedings were transferred to the Federal Court and heard with the proceedings issued by the ACCC. The judgment on this case was delivered on February 27, 1998 six years after Australia passed a statutory code dealing with defective goods in 1992 sixty years after the verdict on the Donoghue v Stevenson’s case.
• Eveready Australia Pty Ltd v Gillette Australia Pty Ltd OR Taco Company of Aust Inc v Taco Bell Pty Ltd (“objective test”)