Case Study : Burch V Shire Of Yarra Ranges & Anor

In the year of 1836, the Court of Appeals of Virginia came to a decision in the case of Burley v. Griffith. This dispute began when Luke Griffith feared that one of his most valuable slaves, William Lee, was at risk to escape and flee the commonwealth of Virginia. Griffith’s suspicions and unease pushed him to place this particular slave in the Ohio County Jail under the custody of Sheriff Burley for safekeeping. This right to hold slaves in jail was granted in a statute that was passed nearly 12 years earlier in the state of Virginia. Griffith brought 3 counts against Burley in the Circuit Superior Court of Law and Chancery for Ohio County. One count stated that Griffith’s slave escaped due to negligence in the care of Burley. Another count

This paper is prepared in order to understand the IRAC format (Issues, Rule, Analysis, and Conclusion). The IRAC format is considered as the standard format for soling the case studies of the law. In this paper, the case of “ROADS AND TRAFFIC AUTHORITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES V DEDERER (2007)” is selected to demonstrate the learning about the comprehension and understanding of terminology of law, particularly the terms used in the Law of Tort. Moreover, critical things and case law searching to solve the case study is also practiced and properly referenced in the solution of the case study. Here is the case study solution:

This criminal case involves two parties. These are the Crown or prosecutor versus Adrian Bayley, aged 43 years.

Provided Case 09-3, we, Group 7 have dutifully researched the topic, using resources at our disposal to formulate a consistent, clear and legal response. The following submission outlines the case, our conclusions with supporting evidence and the accounting issues present in the subject.

1. In Winstead v. Commonwealth, Winstead filed a motion to stop Rainwater from testifying about anything that had occurred during their marriage and to exclude anything they said to each other during their marriage. This motion specifically tried to exclude the conversations between Winstead and Rainwater regarding what she should tell the police about where he was the night of the murder, but the court ruled that conversations between couples about an alibi were not privileged because an alibi was intended for disclosure.

The Australian Constitution creates a highly contemporary federal structure, which means that intergovernmental relations are very important for the system to operate effectively in which Section 51(xx) of the constitution provides shared powers to state and federal government. The Commonwealth and states sought to achieve uniform corporate regulation from the 1960s, resulting in the corporations law.

​The current legislation has caused issues for many Australians. This is illustrated in court in 2009, with then 49 year Christian Rossite. Christian Rossite was a quadriplegic after an automotive accident, and had asked his care provider if they would remove his PEG tube (feeding tube) from him, unsure if it was legal or not the care provider called on the Chief Justice in Western Australia, Wayne Martin who ruled in favour of Christian Rossite. Wayne Martin stated that Christian Rossite was ‘entitled to instruct his cares to remove a feeding tube from his stomach’ (2009, Martin), causing Christian Rossite to willingly starve to death. During this process Christian Rossite was reassured that the option to return to the PEG tube (feeding tube) was available, but chose to continue. Christian Rossite died from a chest infection soon after. His brother was quoted saying ‘Death I suspect comes as quite a relief for Christian’ (2009, Rossite), as Christian was also quoted saying ‘I have no fear of death- just pain. I only fear pain.’ (2009, Rossite). Christian Rossite died suffering, in pain from not only starving, but also a chest infection, this could have been prevented if there was sufficient legislation to allow Christian Rossite to die with peace.

The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act in 1976 established a basic on which to build upon for Aboriginal peoples, for the first time, they have the to right to claim land based on their traditional culture. The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act was the first attempt by any Australian Government to legalize the Aboriginal systems and land ownership. This Act allowed for Aboriginal peoples to practice their traditional ways, which had not been allowed since the white settlers had come to Australia and taken away that right over 200 years ago. The land that is granted to the Aboriginal people cannot be bought, acquired, mortgaged or ‘compulsory acquired’ by the government.

After the partial recognition of indigenous land rights in Mabo, the indigenous people of Australia have attempted to push towards indigenous ‘sovereignty’. These attempts were rebuffed by the courts in two prolific cases such as Coe v Commonwealth and Walker v New South Wales. In the Coe v Commonwealth case, Coe applied for leave to amend their statement of claim to assert that the Aboriginal people were a sovereign nation and his claims were decisively rejected. The Court argued that it cannot be supported that there was an aboriginal nation which has sovereignty over Australia. There was no sovereignty adverse to the Crown, residing in the aboriginal people of Australia, nor was

According to the choice of High Court of Australia there has been sure issues brought up in significance with the relationship between the agreement and the tort for the development business specifically. On the other hand, the existing together obligation is the standard that various respondents can be responsible for the same damage. An inquirer could pass on an endeavour contiguous complex litigants who are liable for their rate allots (Kidner, 2012). Frequently the there would be singular offended party for the different torts. Consequently, through

Ms Maricar Virata v NSW Motel Management Services Pty Ltd T/A Comfort Inn Country Plaza Halls Gap [2015] FWC 7932

I was detoured to Blackstone Street. As I proceeded down the road I saw a sign that said 12 feet to go under the bridge. I got to the bridge as I tried to go through it my truck got stuck nevertheless I was able to back out in addition there is damage to the roof and bay doors. There is no damage to the bridge.

Case 1 – Southern Han Breakfast Point Pty Ltd v Lewence Construction Pty Ltd [2016] HCA 52

1. Identify the areas of law that are relevant to the chosen media report, and explain how they are relevant to the matters outlined in the report.

In the statement, it is mentioned that the great strength of the common law lies in its capacity to develop to meet the changing needs and circumstances of the society in which it functions. A case to illustrate this point would be W v Registrar of Marriages [2013] HKCFA 39 (CFA).