Instructions:
This assignment is to be submitted by the due date via Safe-Assign on Blackboard.
The assignment is to be submitted in accordance with assessment policy stated in the Subject Outline and Student Handbook.
It is the responsibility of the student submitting the work to ensure that the work is in fact his/her own work. Ensure that when incorporating the works of others into your submission that it appropriately acknowledged.
This is a group assignment. Students are to group themselves to a minimum of 3and a maximum of 5 students per group. The assignment consists of 2 parts: a 2,000-word report (maximum) and an 8-10 minutes (maximum) in-class or video presentation.
 

Instructions: Please read and re-read carefully to avoid mistakes.

1) Research on an Australian case on negligence from the list below (page 3).
2) Select the party you wish to represent – i.e. Plaintiff or Defendant. There is no need to choose both
3) Read the original text of your case and understand
4) Group report: Write a report outlining the following:

Case introduction.

The facts of the

The issues raised by both plaintiff and

The arguments presented by both

The judgment of the

Critical analysis of why the court decided in favour of or against the party you chose (i.e. plaintiff or defendant). Some points to consider for your analysis:

If your chosen party won the case, why was its case stronger or more compelling than the other party’s case? Why did the court agree with its arguments?

If your chosen party lost the case, why was its case weaker or less compelling that the other party’s case? Why did the court disagree with its arguments?

5) Group report must be submitted via Safe-Assign on
6) Group presentation: Present the report in class or video recording. Your lecturer will advise which is more

If in-class presentation, all members must present on the day. If video presentation, groups must show to the satisfaction of the lecturer that all group members made a reasonable contribution to the group Students not participating in the presentation will merit a mark of Zero for presentation.

Non-compliance with this requirement will result in a failing mark or a fail will be

7) Video link must be uploaded to a publicly viewable video-sharing platform (ex. Youtube, Dropbox, Google drive) and the video link uploaded on
 

BUSINESS LAW CASES TO CHOOSE FROM: 

Nagel v Rottnest Island Authority (1993)

Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre v Anzil (2000)

Roads and Traffic Authority v Dederer (2007)

Esanda Finance v Peat Marwick Hungerfords (1997)

Fallas v Mourlas (2006)

Rogers v Whitaker (1992)

Caltex Oil v Dredge (1976)

Perre v Apand (1999)

L Shaddock v Parramatta City Council (1982)

Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980)

Hawkins v Clayton (1988)

Koehler v Cerebos (Aust) Ltd (2005)

Horne v Queensland (1995)

Peter Joseph Haylen v NSW Rugby Union Ltd (2002)

Flavel v State of SA (2008)

Tame v NSW (2001)

Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Ltd (2001)

Hackshaw v Shaw (1984)

Baker v Gilbert (2003)

Australian Safeway Stores v Zaluzna (1987)

Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen [1982] HCA 27

Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465

Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394

Re Warumungu Land Claim; Ex parte Attorney General (NT) (1988) 77 ALR 27

Swain v Waverly Municipal Council [2005] HCA 4

Goldman v Hargrave [1967] 1 AC 645

Strong v Woolworths Ltd [2012] HCA 5

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936] AC 85

Lister v Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co Ltd [1957] AC555

Ford & Anor v La Forrest & Ors [2001] QSC 261