Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Assignment 2
Assignment 2
Chapters 2 & 3
November 2011
5 marks
The Family Law Reform Act 1969 reduced the age of majority from 21 to 18 years and a
person under this age is categorized as infant or minor.
In Criminal Law, minors are divided into three classes:i ) 1 to 9 years ( irrebuttable presumption of an inability to commit a crime )
ii) 10 to 13 years ( rebuttable presumption of an absence of criminal intent )
iii) 14 to 18 years ( full criminal responsibility )
Other rules
i ) cannot vote at elections
ii ) cannot marry under age 16
iii ) cannot marry without consent ( of parents ) under age 18
iv ) cannot sit on a jury
v ) cannot make a will ( exception : armed service on active military
service or seaman at sea )
vi ) In civil litigation
* cannot sue in own name ( ie. only through a next friend )
* cannot defend in own name ( ie. only through a litigation friend )
but costs borne by the minor
c)
marks
The Crown in legal terms, it is more or less equivalent to government. The crown
consists of:
Thevantharen Muniandy
Assignment 2
Originally, the Crown was above the law. Actions against the Crown ( for torts
committed by its servants ) could only be brought through a Petition of Right which
required the consent of the Attorney General on behalf of the Crown
Crown Proceedings Act 1947 was passed to remedy the situation where the effect is
that it :
d)
marks
LIMITED COMPANIES
No corporate existence
Scope of activities may be changed
by mutual agreement
Partners have unlimited
liability
by Special Resolution
Liability of members limited to the value of
shares or guarantee
Management is in the hands of the Board of
role in management
Members generally limited to 20
Details of accounts and affairs may
Directors
No legal restrictions on number of members
Details of accounts and other matters must be
be kept private
Partners must be in business with a
made public
Company may or may not trade for profit
view to profit
All partners must
agree
to
the
Thevantharen Muniandy
Assignment 2
20 marks
any act of the defendant which directly causes the claimant to fear an attack on
their person.
the hostile application by the defendant of physical force by the defendant even
though it may be slight, to the claimant.
assault and battery typically go together but it is possible to have one without
the other a real threat of violence which is not carried out is still an assault,
and sudden attack from behind, where the claimant is never threatened or put in
fear of violence is a battery.
3. False imprisonment
occurs when the defendant imposes total bodily restraint on the claimant,
preventing them from going where they want to go.
Thevantharen Muniandy
Assignment 2
occurs where the defendant directly and intentionally interferes with goods which
are in the possession of another.
taking goods from the possession moving them from one place to another,
throwing things at them or meddling with them.
Heyden v. Smith (1610) cutting down another persons trees,
Wright v. Ramscott (1667) beating his dog and
Hamps v. Derby (1948) shoot another persons racing pigeons.
Conversion
if the defendant deliberately deals with the goods in a way which is inconsistent
with the rights of the person who owns or possesses them they can be sued for
conversion.
wrongfully causing damage to anothers goods will always be a trespass but will
amount to a conversation only where the goods are effectively destroyed or
made useless.
buy a car or other property which has been stolen, the owner may sue in
conversation for the return of the goods.
Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 the collective description wrongful
interference with goods was introduced to cover trespass to goods, conversation
and certain other torts concerning goods. The Act simplified procedures and
remedies relating to these torts but did not change the common law principle.
4. a) What are the essential elements necessary to establish a case of
defamation.
10 marks
For an action in defamation to succeed the following four elements must be presented:
a defamatory statement
reference (of the statement) to the claimant
publication (of the defamatory statement)
damage (in case of slander not actionable per se)
Defamatory statement
A statement is defamatory if it is false and exposes the claimant to hatred,
ridicule or contempt or lower them in the eyes of right-thinking members of society
generally. A distinction must be made between statements which are defamatory and
ones which amount only to vulgar abuse. The former harm a persons reputation
whereas the latter merely hurt their pride. Defamation may be by way of innuendo,
which is where an apparently innocent statement about another has a hidden and
defamatory meaning. In such a case, the claimant must prove the innuendo, that is
establish that persons to whom the statement was published understood it in a
defamatory sense. For example in Cassidy v. Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd (1929) the
Thevantharen Muniandy
Assignment 2
newspaper published a picture of Mr. Cassidy with a young woman and stated that they
were about to be married. In fact, Mr. Cassidy was already married and Mrs. Cassidy
recovered damages from the newspaper because the picture and story implied that she
and Mr. Cassidy lived together outside marriage, and her friends had understood it in
this way.
Reference to the claimant
The claimant must establish that they were the one identified by the statement.
If they are not mentioned by name they must prove that a reasonable person reading
the statement, and knowing the claimant, would assume that it referred to them. The
reference to the claimant need not be intentional. In Newstead v. London Express
Newspaper Ltd (1940), the defendants published a true statement that Harold
Newstead, a 30 year old Camberwell man had been convicted of bigamy. Unfortunately,
another 30 year old man with the same name (who was not a bigamist) lived in
Camberwell. This statement was held to be defamatory of him. In Hulton v. Jones (1910)
the claimant, one Artemus Jones (who was a well-known lawyer and journalist),
succeeded in defamation against the defendant who had given the name Artemus
Jones to a disreputable character in book which was intended to be fictional.
Where a defamatory statement refers to a whole class of person; such as all
politicians are greedy and corrupt, the harmful effect of the words is so watered down
that an action in defamation is unlikely to succeed, unless the group is so small that the
words can be taken as defamatory of each member.
Publication
A defamatory statement is not actionable unless it is published, that is
communicated to some person other than the claimant. Where no publication is
intended, the defendant will be liable if publication was foreseeable and does, in fact,
occur. For example, it is foreseeable that defamatory remarks on a postcard addressed
to the claimant will be read by others but not remarks contained in a letter sent to their
private address.
Repeating or passing on a defamatory statement is fresh publication and
generally makes the new author liable, even where they are unaware that the matter is
defamatory. However, mere mechanical distributors, such as a newsagents,
booksellers and libraries will not be liable unless they either know or ought to know that
the work they are distributing is libelous.
Special rules apply in the case of husband and wife. No publication occurs where
the defamatory statement is made to the spouse of the defendant and no other person,
but a defamatory statement made to the spouse of the claimant is deemed to have
been published.
Damage
Damage need to be proved only in cases of slander not actionable per se. This
must be a material loss having some financial value.
Thevantharen Muniandy
Assignment 2
In cases other than mentioned, special damage must be proved. This must be a
material loss having some financial value, such as loss of employment, or loss of
financial benefits through the refusal of persons to contract with the claimant.
5. Mr. John intends to commence a negligence suit against Mr. Robert. Explain
what the three essential ingredients are under the law of negligence
before Mr. John files a negligence action against Mr. Robert.
20 marks
There
Thevantharen Muniandy
Assignment 2
Duty of care
originally the law recognized established categories where a duty of care was
owed
general principle governing the duty of care was established in the famous case
of Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932). The important was the general principle which
the case established, known as the neighbour principle or neighbour test.
It occurs when the defendant fails to do what a reasonable man would have
done in the circumstances, or does what a reasonable man would not have done
breach occurs when the defendant fails to take reasonable precautions.
Under English Law, the standard by which the defendants behaviour is judged is
objective the same standard applies to everybody.
A defendant who holds himself out as having some particular skill or ability will
be expected to exercise that skill in a competent fashion professional person
(doctor) will be judged by the standards prevailing in the medical profession and
not according to the medical knowledge of the man in the street. Wilsher v.
Essex Health Authority (1986)
Whether a breach has occurred is a question of fact, to be decided by the court in
the light of all the circumstances of the case, such as:
the magnitude of the risk involved in the defendants activities (i.e. the likelihood
of damage being caused and the potential seriousness of such damage);
the ease with which the risk could have been eliminated or reduced and the
potential costs involved;
Thevantharen Muniandy
Assignment 2
generally adequate. The risk could have been eliminated (perhaps by building a
dome over the ground) but the cost of this was obviously not justified.
Damages
damage may take a number of forms; i.e. death, bodily injury and damage to
property.
there are special considerations where the damage takes the form of nervous
shock or financial loss.
Causation and remoteness of damage
a defendant is not liable in negligence (or tort) for every loss which has some
connection with their wrongful act.
test for remoteness of damage was based purely on causation the defendant
was liable for any injury or damage which was caused directly by their
negligence, but was not liable for indirect consequences.
This principle was rejected by the Privy Council in Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v.
Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (1961) often cited as The Wagon Mound
(name of the ship) established a new test based on foreseeability damage
would be too remote if it was of a type which was not reasonably foreseeable.
Facts men employed by the defendants negligently split fuel oil into Sydney Harbour.
The oil mixed with cotton waste and other debris, spread to the claimants wharf where
welding operations were causing sparks to fall into the water. The sparks caused the oil
to ignite, setting fire to the claimants wharf.
Decision although the fire was a direct result of the defendants negligence the Court
held that the damage was too remote because it was of a type which was not
reasonably foreseeable. At the time, apparently, it was not known that oil could catch
fire in this way.
Defendants owed a duty of care to the claimants because some damage was
foreseeable, but the type of damage which did occur was not foreseeable.
Therefore, it was too remote.
The Wagon Mound decision did not alter an old common law rule that you take your
victim as you find him. This rule applies in what are known as thin skull cases
where the damage is not reasonably foreseeable because it results from some preexisting physical weakness or defect in the claimant of which the defendant is not
aware.
Smith v. Leech Brain and Co. Ltd (1961) a worker had pre-malignant cancer of the lip
which was activated when a blob of molten metal struck him through the negligence of
a fellow employee, and the died of the disease. Although death from such an apparently
trivial injury was quite unforeseeable, the employers were fully liable. Cases such as
this are an exception to the general rule that no claim lies for damage which is not
foreseeable.
Although the main test for remoteness is now reasonable forseeability the issue of
causation is still important.
Thevantharen Muniandy
Assignment 2
If defendants negligence was not the direct cause of the damage they will not be
responsible for it and the issue of foreseeability need not even be considered.
The chain of causation leading from the defendants negligent act is broken by a
novus actus interveniens (new intervening cause), the defendant will not be
responsible for any damage which occurs subsequently.
Hogan v. Bentinck Colliery (1949) the claimant was injured at work due to a breach of
duty by his employers. He was taken to hospital and his thumb was amputated as a
result of faulty medical diagnosis. The liability for the loss of the thumb and residual
pain did not fall to the employers as the negligent medical action was a new intervening
cause.