Case Law

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.

Following Bridge’s comment that “the juridical basis of the duty to mitigate is obscure”, the first section of the essay will examine whether mitigation is best explained as an aspect of causation. It will be considered if causation explains mitigation, whether causation is the superior explanation, before discussing an alternative approach based on a reformulation of the compensatory principle. The second section of the essay will examine the true basis for the rules of remoteness in contract and tort, and will ask whether the

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

Another point of notable importance in this case is the articulation of a logical connection between the controversial matters. Neither the Act, nor the Code explicitly requires a practitioner to consider the implication of impending investigations of the administration prior to accepting an appointment. Honourable Justice Davies had regard to the concept referred to in Accord Pacific Holdings Pty Limited v Gleeson in which it was emphasised that the apprehension of a lack of independence and

foreseeability of the damage, «proximity» between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the fact that it was just and reasonable to assume the existence of a duty of care

Undoubtedly, the involvement of legal action has brought about the conclusion of both cases. However, understanding the legal process they had endured is vital in distinguishing the similarities and differences. Every court case retains its own unique story and issue in which its solved through laws that adapt and cohere with the unique situations. Breaching a contract plays heavy tolls on the parties, as emphasis on damages and remedies is highly important. These

The Pettit case and many decisions made subsequently; for example, Lloyds Bank v Rosset Stack , Abbot v Abbot

Every law which is made by the parliament needs to be clearly defined and applied by judges in accordance with each case being dealt with. While deliberiating on choices about a case a judge should go by the precedent set by the higher courts concerning the circumstance and conditions applicable, as this additionally helps the one required for the situation as they are aware they will be dealt with alike and not arbitraily. The structure of the judicial precendent in the English legal system, with English law is established on the hypothesis of stare decisis. Stare decisis is the doctrine that rules principles of law on which a court rested a past verdict are defintive in all future cases, in which factors are similar. Judges need to follow these previous decisions which is a ‘binding precedent’.

BIBLIOGRAPHYCASES•Balmain New Ferry Co v Robertson (1906) 4 CLR 379•Myer Stores v Soo [1991] 2 VR 597•Meering v Grahame-White Aviation, Murray v Ministry of Defence [1988] 1 WLR 692•Platt v Nutt (1988) 12 NSWLR 231•Bird v Jones (1845) 115 ER 668•Burton v Davies [1953] QSR 26•R v Macquarie (1875) 13 SCR 264•Lamb v Cotogno (1987) 164 CLR 1•Henry v Thompson [1989] 2 QdR 412•R v Latimer (1886) 17 QBD 359•Bunyan v Jordan (1937) 57 CLR at 12•James v Campbell (1832) 5 C & P 372•Ball et Uxor v Axten (18

Relative Law: Keeping in view the provisions contained in Civil liability Act 2003 (Queensland) and the judgement passed in the case of Donogue V/S Stevenson 1932 and in case of Du Pradal & Anor v Petchell [2014] QSC 261 there was a breach of duty in the issue discussed above to take precautions on the part of defendant (Wayne) causing a damage to the plaintiff (Paul) and that risk of harm i.e. injury caused to Paul could have been avoided by doing something in a different way or by taking adequate precautionary measures.

(16) Bisgood v Henderson 's Transvaal Estates, Ltd, [1908] 1 Ch 743; 77 LJ Ch 486; 98 LT 809; 24 TLR

R. V. Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal, ex P. Shaw (1951) 1 K.B. 711: (1952) 1 K.B. 338…………………………………………………...13

The Overseas Tankership (UK) Ltd. Vs. Morts Dock and Engineering Co. Ltd. Case is also known as the Wagon Mound Case-1. This case laid down a foundation for ‘foreseeability’ as a rule in the tort of negligence.

Within tort there is the area of negligence which has many different elements. It can analyse the state of mind of an individual committing a crime aswell as the harm caused which could include harm done unintentionally. The approach of tort negligence is related to an individual being harmed through an act of

In William v Roffey Bros case, the Court of Appeal brings the concept of “practical benefits” to the consideration. This case has changed the traditional doctrine of Stilk v Myrick’s case and developed the consideration in contract law. In fact practical benefit can itself be seen as a valid consideration.