Case List S2 2014

Required authorities for final examination
Semester 2 2014

Required cases for final examination
You are not required to provide full citations of cases in the examination. Case names are sufficient. Further, you will not be penalised for not remembering case names in an exam. It is sufficient that you identify the case you are referring to by an obvious abbreviation (e.g. “the pregnant cow case”) or summary of the facts.
However, sometimes this takes more time in the exam than writing out a case name would and on occasion, a student’s description of the facts of a case can be so confused that the marker is unable to tell which case the student is referring to. It is recommended that students attempt to remember case names.
You will need to briefly describe the facts of the case (maybe more detail is required if the case you are referring to is very similar to your question), the outcome and MOST importantly the principle or rule to come out of the case (the “ratio”).

Topic 6 – Performance and breach of contract

Cases required for the final examination
Hide & Skin Trading Pty Ltd v Oceanic Meat Traders Ltd (1990) 20 NSWLR 310
Australian Broadcasting Commission v Australasian Performing Right Association Ltd (1973) 129 CLR 99
Maritime National Fish Ltd v Ocean Trawlers [1935] AC 524
Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW (1982) 149 CLR 337
Associate Newspapers v Bancks (1951) 83 CLR 322
Bettini v Gye (1876) 1 QBD 183
Varley v Whipp [1900] 1 QB 513
Hoenig v Isaacs [1952] 2 All ER 176
Steele v Tardiani (1946) 72 CLR 386
Holland v Wiltshire (1954) 90 CLR 409

Topic 7 – Remedies for breach of contract

Cases required for the final examination
McDonald v Denny Lascelles (1933) 48 CLR 457
Associated Newspapers Ltd v Bancks (1951) 83 CLR 322
Holland v Wiltshire (1954) 90 CLR 409
Radford v de Froberville [1978] 1 All ER 33
Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v Bowen Investments Pty Ltd [2009] HCA 8
Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 2 CLR 517; 9 Exch 341
Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd [1949] 2 KB 528
Baltic Shipping Co v Dillon [1993] HCA 4; (1993) 176 CLR 344
Burns v Man Automotive (Aust) Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 653
Lumley v Wagner (1852) 42 ER 687
Dougan v Ley & Another (1946) 71 CLR 142
Buckenara v Hawthorn Football Club Ltd [1988] VR 39
Codelfa Construction v State Rail Authority of NSW (1982) 149 CLR 337

Topic 9 – Liability in tort law: Negligence

Cases required for the final examination
Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479
Perre v Apand Pty Ltd [1999] HCA 36
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
Shaddock & Associates Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council (No 1) (1981) 150 CLR 225
Romeo v Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory (1998) 192 CLR 431
Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak (2009) 239 CLR 420
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co Pty Ltd (The Wagon Mound No 2) [1966] 1 NSWR 411

NOTE: As it concerns the Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA), you will NOT have to make reference to any specific provisions of that legislation, but you may be required to apply the lecture content concerning this legislation to answer some multiple choice questions.

Topic 10 – Business Organisations

Cases required for the final examination
Canny Gabriel Castle Jackson Advertising Pty Ltd v Volume Sales (Finance) Pty Ltd (1974)
Turnbull v Ah Mouy (1871)
Salomon v Salomon & Co [1897]
Lee v Lee’s Air Farming Ltd [1961]
AWA Ltd v Daniels (t/as Deloitte Haskins & Sells) (1992)
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Adler (2002)

NOTE: For the exam, you will NOT be required to discuss the specific provisions of the Partnership Act 1895 (WA), Trustees Act 1962 (WA) or the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), although you will have to understand their role in regulating the business structure to which they relate.

Resolving legal case studies – Four Step Process
Sometimes it is useful to use headings at the beginning of each step.
Step 1

Identify the legal issue
Usually this is easily worked out from the question itself. The legal issue will always be concerned with a topic that has been discussed in the unit.
Only a sentence is required for this step. For example, ‘The legal issue is whether both parties have demonstrated a clear intention to be legally bound in the formation of a valid contract’.
Step 2

Explain the rule(s) of law.
Explain the rules of law relevant to that issue with reference to authority (cases and/or legislation). This is your best opportunity to obtain marks by showing that you know the legal rules applicable to the legal issue. (The extent to which you will be required to provide detail in an assignment is different to an examination and will of course depend upon the marks allocated to that problem and the time you have available).
Important cases should be identified and a brief summary of the facts, the decision of the court, and a statement of the important principle of law that the case makes should be provided. Sometimes it is a section of an Act that you are relying on as authority for the principle of law that you have identified and explained.
In step two you should explain the principles of law as if to someone who knows nothing about the unit. In that way you will make sure that you explain at the level and in the detail that is required.
Remember that if you are writing an examination/test you do not have to quote the citation of a case. You do not even need to remember the names of the parties. It is quite acceptable to say something ‘in the smoke ball case’. It is the facts, the decision and the principle (ratio) of the case that are important.
DON’T mention any of the FACTS of the case study/problem question at this stage. Step 2 is the place to logically explain all the law relevant to the problem.
Step 3

Apply the law to the facts of the question in a detailed and logical manner, to EVERY rule of law explained in step two. Consider each aspect or element of legal criteria discussed in Step 2 and decide whether it is satisfied in the scenario that you are considering.
For example, you would say something like ‘Fred made Mary an offer of … because…’ It is always necessary to explain which of the facts of the question indicate that the element of the action has been satisfied.
Remember if you have taken the time to explain the rule of law then you should apply the facts specifically to that rule.
Step 4

Draw possible conclusions. Please note that many problems do not have a definitive ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer until the matter has been decided by a court of law. It is best to state your conclusions in language that reflects this reality. Use statements like ‘it is likely…’ here.
Your conclusion can usually be put in one or two sentences. A long discussion is not necessary. Your conclusion is just a summary of what you have considered in Step 3.