Legal - Cases Flashcards
Australian Case
- Manufacturer of underpants negligently left a metal sulphite in the material.
- Wearer was affected by dermatitis
- Wearer had contract with seller, but not manufacturer
Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills (1936) AC 85
Decision: Used persuasive precedent of Donoghue v. Stevenson
- As with Donoghue v. Stevenson it was not possible for the seller to see defect on examination.
- Manufacturer should have had ultimate consumer at time of manufacture
- Grant was successful
Impact Law of negligence was clearly established in Australia.
British Case
- Ginger beer contaminated with decomposed snail
- Drinker became very ill
- Sued manufacturer because bottle was not cleaned properly
- Drinker had not purchased the bottle, and it was dark glass so the retailer could not determine the goods were faulty
Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) AC 562
Decision: House of Lords decided for plaintiff, despite not being a party to a contract with the manufacturer.
Ratio decidendi included “where a manufacturer sells a product which will reach the ultimate consure without possibility of interference, and where inspection is not possible, the manufacturer owes a duto of care to the ultimate consumer.
Also established the ‘neighbour principle’
Impact: Law of negligence clearly established in Great Britain
Referred to the importation of undersized crayfish from South Australia to Tasmania
Cole v Whitfield {1988) 165 CLR 360
”
Impact: The states are restricted from making laws that interfere with free trade within the Commonwealth, some restrictions are acceptable as long as they - do not impose a burden on interstate trade - discriminate against interstate trade. This right is also stronger than some other express rights in that it, since a 1935 decision of the High Court, applies to both state and federal laws.
”
- the Victorian Government challenged the Commonwealth’s power to make conditional grants under s.96 regarding road building at the time.
- Under this section, Commonwealth can make grants ‘on such terms and condition as the parliament sees fit’, which the Victorian Government considered unconstitutional.
- Therefore the issue at hand was whether Commonwealth’s right to give conditions for grants, in this case road building, intruded on states residual powers.
‘The State of Victoria v. The Commonwealth [1926]’
Also known as The Roads Case
Impact: As a result of the Roads Case, Commonwealth can impose itself in areas once considered to be residual powers by granting money with strict conditions, such as education or roads.
- Involved a challenge to the ‘World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 (Cwlth)’ by the Tasmanian Government.
- Under his Act, Commonwealth had nominated for World Heritage listing the specific areas the Tasmanian Government planned to dam.
- The main issue of the case was whether Commonwealth have the power to legislate on an area of law that was residual, given solely to the states.
‘Commonwealth v. Tasmania (1983)’
also known as the “Tasmanian Dam Case”
Impact: Subsequently, the Commonwealth now has the authority, through its external affairs power to create broad ranging legislation. This case had a significant impact on the division of law making powers, as it no longer restricted Commonwealth from legislating on powers once deemed residual
Court was asked to interpret the phrase ‘start to drive’ of the Road Safety Act 1986 (vic)
Did the accused who was sitting in the car (with a blood alcohol level of over .05), while the engine was running, start to drive the car?
Davies v. Waldron (1989)
Decsion: The Supreme Court found that the accused was in charge of the motor vehicle and did start to drive the motor vehicle within the meaning of the Road Safety Act.
the High Court declared rules that required a lawyer from NSW to give up practising law in that state if he wanted to practise law in Queensland were invalid.
Street v Queensland Bar Association (1989) 168 CLR 461
_Reason:_Reason: Rules such as this imposed a disability on someone from another state rather than a benefit on people from the home state, and this disability was not imposed on residents of home state, too.
A man was wearing a belt with silver studs and was in public. As a result, he was charged with possessing a regulated weapon. - At his case, the Magistrates’ Court found him guilty of ‘possessing a regulated weapon without a lawful excuse’.
- He then appealed to Supreme Court. (Appealed on Control of Weapons Act, section 6 (i))
- The Supreme Court decided that the studded belt is not a weapon, but it can be used as one. Thus, the appellant was found not guilty of the original crime.
Deing v Tarola (1993) 2 VR 163
Impact: A statute was interpreted and thus precedent was created.
It was the role of the Supreme Court to engage in statutory interpretation when interpreting the terms ‘regulated weapon’ and ‘lawful excuse’ and determining how to apply the legislation to this set of facts.
A lady driving along a highway at night swerved to avoid a sheep that had escaped from a broken fence on the farmland beside the highway. The car crossed the divider and hit another car, driving in the opposite direction. The women that crossed the divider was killed and the family in the second car (the Trigwells) were injured.
The farmer was taken to the High Court as he had not kept his fence in good keeping therefore inadvertantly contributing, negligently, to the deaths of the passengers
Trigwell V. State Government Insurance Commission [1979] HCA 40; (1979) 142 Clr 617
Decision: The High Court decided that the farmer was not responsible and hence did not have to pay damages to the Trigwells. This decision was made using the precedent of Searle v. Wallbank from the British House of Lords. However, In the justices obiter dictum they called for parliamentary intervention to abrogate the precedent as they believed it was wrong and that it was not the job of them to do so.
Impact: Wrongs (Animals Straying on Highways) Act 1984 (Vic.), which abrogated or abolished the common-law rule. The law was changed by parliament so now stock owners are liable for the damage caused by their straying animals.
The defendant does not have the power to waive the right to ‘trial by jury’
Brown v The Queen (1986)
Impact: In other words, they cannot elect to have a trial without a jury.
8 commercial television broadcasters asked the High Court to declare Part IIID of the act invalid
Arguments
- The new laws interfered with a right to free political speech which was implied in the Constitution.
- The parts of the Act requiring that broadcasters give ‘free time’ to certain people was an unjust acquisition of property.
- The NSW Govt argued the laws were discriminatory against the states and they interfered with the proper business of State Governments.
Australian Capital Television v Commonwealth (1992) 177 CLR 106
Decision: Part IIID of Act was invalid, because it contravened this implied right
the Constitution provides for a system of responsible government, and the right to free political communication is an indispensable part of that system
Impact: One of the earliest in a series of cases in which the High Court found implied rights in the Constitution.
This trend reached a high-point in Theophanous, which found that the implied right to freedom of political communication could be used as a defence in a defamation action.
Although that is no longer the case, the limited right to freedom of communication remains.
High Court of Australia case that deals with the implied freedom of political communication in the Australian Constitution.
Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520.”
Decsion: two-stage test was developed in Lange’s case, to determine whether a law infringes the implied freedom of political communication.
- Does the law burden (restrict) the freedom of political communication about government or political matters?
- If yes, is the law reasonably appropriate and adapted to serve a legitimate end that is compatible with the maintenance of representative and responsible government?
This challenge contended that both the Howard government’s amendment and the original electoral act were invalid.
Among the arguments put forward The constitutional phrase ‘the people’ was intended to be as broad and encompassing as possible, not something to be defined by the government of the day.
Underpinning this was an argument that the Constitution contains an implied right to political participation and voting.
Indigenous Australians are disproportionately represented in prisons: they constitute just one per cent of the population but make up 22 per cent of inmates. The electoral change therefore resulted in disproportionate disenfranchisement Australia’s indigenous people, silencing their political voice.
Roach v Electoral Commissioner [2007] HCA 43
Impact: Defined an implied right under the constitution: The right to vote could only be limited for substantial reasons.
Parliament can only restrict a person’s right to vote if it is thought necessary to preserve representative government. Such reasons could include
- unsoundness of mind,
- conviction of treason
- committing a serious criminal misconduct.
- Prisoners serving a prison sentence of more than three years were thought to be appropriately included under this limitation.*
- Chief Justice Gleeson stated that the right to vote could be removed for serious criminal misconduct, but not removed for prisoners who had been sentenced for less culpable criminal offences. The 2004 legislation was therefore valid (banning prisoners serving three years or more). However, it was unconstitutional for all sentenced prisoners to be denied the right to vote.*
