You are on page 1of 5

The legal system foundations and courts Question 1 i) This report aims to outline the Western Australian court

hierarchy and the different cases involved in each court. The Australian court hierarchy involves six courts in two separate systems - the federal, the states and territories. Each system is then break down into three levels of courts with its own jurisdiction of cases and monetary limit. 1. States and territories system: 1.1 Magistrates Courts: (or Local Court) deals mostly with civil and criminal cases where decisions are made by a single magistrate without any jury. With civil cases, it breaks into family law like child support payments to former spouse and civil claims including damages and compensation within the money limit set. In criminal cases, magistrates can hear summary of less serious offences like theft and minor assault as well as criminal cases of offenders who are children (i.e. under 18 years old). Western Australia has eliminated committal or preliminary hearings. 1.2 Districts or County Courts: an intermediate court that is lead by a single judge who responsible for three types of cases. The civil cases claims with a monetary limit, serious criminal offences except those that involves penalty of imprisonment. The Judge can also hear appeals from civil and criminal cases from Local, Magistrate Courts. 1.3 Supreme Courts: is the highest state court in Western Australia, which deals with serious criminal cases such as murder, or robbery that is presided by a Judge and a jury. Another type the court deals with is civil case with no money limit like claims for a breach of contract. The court also hears appeals from District Courts by a Judge with no jury. However, with appeals from the single judge - Supreme Court, the appeals will be hear by the Full Court of Appeal including of three judges. 2. The Federal System: 2.1 Family Court: responsible for cases relates to family matters such as divorce, children’s matters. A judge hears all cases and the decisions can be appealed to Full Family Court with three judges and there may go further to the High Court for appeal. 2.2 Federal Court: deals with cases involving federal law, bankruptcy, corporations and taxation areas heard by a single judge. The decisions made can be appeals to the Full Court of the Federal Court and then may be appealed to the High Court. 2.3 High Court: is the highest court of the Australian court hierarchy and therefore it has jurisdiction over all matter. It deals mainly with constitutional issues and disputes between the Federal and the States. It is the final court of appeals from the Federal Court and the Supreme Courts of the States and Territories. Up to seven justices of the High Court preside depending on the nature of the trial. In conclusion, the court hierarchy of Western Australia or Australia in general, is certainly connected to one another. From the lowest Magistrate Courts, the judge’s decisions can be appealed up to the High Court. However, except for High Court, all other courts have their own control and limitation of cases’ types. ii) The case is about an online travel agent Best Flights got charge by the Perth Magistrate's

an unqualified and inexperienced driver is subject to the same objective standard of reasonable care that is required of a qualified and experienced driver. (Travel agent fined for misleading prices. Travel agent fined for misleading prices (2010) stated that Best Flights defence was not accepted and the Court found that the agency did not comply with its obligations under the FTA to ensure the correct information passing to consumers. In 2008. 2009. The first test asked whether the defendant owes the plaintiff a duty of care. Section 53 (e) . p. 95).False Presentation of the Trade Practices Act or in s 12(1) (g) of the WA Fair Trading Act. Best Flights refused to honour the $159 flight prices. Civil Liability Acts applied to this case and with four tests that the plaintiff must show on the balance of probabilities in order to prove negligence. The main defence that Maggie can have is to prove that her uncle has contributed his own negligence. (Vickery et al.court to pay over $13000 in fines and court costs for the misleading consumers about prices and false representation (Travel agent fined for misleading prices. 2009. The court heard that the Best Flights website offered to consumers a Perth to Melbourne flight seat for $159 and a return ticket priced at $159. not too remote or beyond what would have been reasonably consider (Vickery et al. Civil Liability . Not every type of harm gives rise to liability. However. The last test asked is the loss was reasonably foreseeable or not too remote. as a skilled person he owns a great . a person in the defendant’s position must have recognised the harm as a real possibility. This case is related to Consumer Protection under Consumer law and in specific. she could have refuse to take the drive or drive more cautiously. His uncle is a qualified driver. Skilled people must satisfy the standard of care of a reasonably competent practitioner. p. Maggie also owed the same standard of care like a qualified driver even though she is inexperienced. The second test asks did the defendant breach the duty of care. uncle Bill has injured that was caused by Maggie’s breach of the standard of care. The loss or injury was reasonably foreseeable and not too remote. toward proceeding to booking stage the total cost was display as $579. In the new law. 2010). Therefore. the duty exists if it was reasonably foreseeable that the defendant’s conduct could cause harm to people in the plaintiff’s situation. This case is similar to Cook v Cook (1986) where it was established that inexperience learner drivers may owe their instructor a lesser standard of care if the instructor negligently contributed to the breach. If there was a failure to take reasonable supervision then this would go to contributory negligence. Prices of goods or services S 53 (e) include both price comparisons and reductions and the seller must disclose all extra charges. and other road users. 2010). Maggie does owed a duty of care because his action was reasonable foreseeable that the harm will occur. the new rule stated that in the discharge of the duty of care to avoid injury to passengers. The third test involved the plaintiff’s loss or injury was caused by the defendant’s breach. The defendant. 596).Tort of negligence Question 2 This problem involves Make in decision in a legal context and in particular the civil liability the tort of negligence.20 as opposed to $318. In this case. including the supervising licensed driver.

Four common practices way to help stopping from giving negligent advice to a client are: 1. This case is supported by the case Imbree v McNeilly(2008).duty of care because he knew it is very unsafe to drive for a poor driver like Maggie. 2. 4. Therefore. 2009. better refer the matter to a superior like a lawyer. supplier of tools and equipment are not state clearly in the given facts (Vickery et al. Question 3 Negligence misstatement is that a plaintiff reasonably relied on the false advice. The five changes as listed on the Key changes (n. The High Court decided that MLC was liable for the negligent misstatement because they are the professional advisers and this is a serious circumstances. the company was badly run and went into liquidation. a multifactor test involving different prime factors is used. This case involved McNeilly drive a four-wheel drive on a gravel road that is provided and supervised by Imbree. remuneration pay. The most important factor is how much control does Sonny have? Because he is a controversial player of the Canterbury Bulldogs. For example. I think uncle Bill can successfully sued Maggie for her negligence. b) There are some changes in industrial relations after 1st January 2010 under the Rudd Government Fair Work implementation. There should not be a different duty of care if a passenger is the driving supervisor. Therefore he is being inform about when. the court gave judgement that Imbree’s damages were deducted by 30% because of his own contributory negligence. p. 107). In my view. 3.employer relationship with the Canterbury Bulldogs. However. Other factors such as the written agreement. p. The High Court determined that McNeilly owed the same duty to take reasonable care to his passengers including the supervisor. Imbree has failed to undertake reasonable supervision this mean there has been a contributory negligence. Employment Law Question 4 a) To determine whether Sonny Bill Williams is an employee or independent contractor. However.) website as follow: . the case MLC v Evatt (1968) where Evatt asked for advice about HG Palmer Ltd. from the first test. correct information. 2009. the reward might be reduce to a certain percentage depends on whether uncle Bill provided adequate supervision. However. Ask the enquirer to take independent legal advice for a better. and Evatt was told that HG company is a good investment. Instead of giving unsure advice. 773). Imbree. a finance company from the senior executive of the MLC Insurance company. 2009. it is clear that he is under the control of the Canterbury Bulldogs management team.d.however. information or opinions carelessly given by the defendant that cause an economic loss (Vickery et al. they should have taken care when giving the advice (Vickery et al. how and where to have the training. p. it is most likely that Sonny is an employee . Do not give advice if you are not sure. it is not clear from the facts given. 106). play the game and any other promotional activities. Remember to include a disclaimer in all written advice. McNeilly lost control of the vehicle and Imbree was rendered a tetraplegic as a result of the accident.

There are no longer any legislative provisions for the making of individual agreements. 3. . 5. The better off overall test replaces the no-disadvantage test for assessing enterprise agreements made. Applications for approval of enterprise agreements must be lodged with FWA within 14 days of the agreement being made. The Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) and the Australian Industrial Registry (Registry) cease operations on 31 December 2009 2. 4. Modern awards stripped back to provide a limited ‘safety net’ made up of ten new National Employment Standards (NES).1.

The West Australian.d. Retrieved: September 16. Fair Work Australia. 2010. Pearson Education Australia.yahoo. Retrieved: September 17. MaryAnne. . n..gov. Wayne. 2010 from http://au.. N. from http://www. 2010.fwa.au/index. F. R. Frenchs Forest.S..com/thewest/a/-/breaking/7941709/travel-agent-finedfor-misleading-prices/ Vickery.REFERENCES Key changes. P.W.news.cfm?pagename=transchanges Travel agent fined for misleading prices. 2009. Australian Business Law.