Exercise 009 | Law

Exercise 009

Marinko v Masri [1999] NSWCA 364 (5 October 1999)

click here to download this document
click here (AustLII link) to view the case

Easy questions

  1. How would you cite the case?
  2. In which court was the case heard? Where does this sit in the court hierarchy?
  3. Who was counsel for the appellants?
  4. Who was counsel for the respondent?
  5. Who were the judges?
  6. What were the facts of the case?
  7. What were the appellants seeking?
  8. What type of case was this - civil, criminal, appellate, first instance?
  9. What was the outcome of the case?
  10. Was it a unanimous decision of the judges or is there a dissenting view by one or more judges?
  11. What is the authority of a dissenting view?

More difficult questions

  1. What were the grounds of appeal?
  2. What was the legal question to be decided?
  3. What was Rolfe J's (the trial judge) finding in relation to whether the husband could be compensated for nervous shock, grief and depression?
  4. What was the submission by the defendants regarding 'double dipping'?
  5. What effect did the defendants consider that the husband's failure to claim payment for the past gratuitous care he had provided for his wife should have on the award?
  6. What was Handley JA's opinion on the issue of the husband's failure to claim payment for past gratuitous care?
  7. What approach did Handley JA take to determining whether there was overlap between the award on the basis of the wife's loss and that of the husband? What case/s did he refer to?
  8. Explain the process employed by Handley JA in determining the apportionment of general damages, and of economic loss.
  9. On what basis did Handley JA state that he was unable to change the trial judge's decision in relation to the husband's future economic loss?

Complex questions

  1. Do you agree with Handley JA's opinion on the husband's failure to claim for past gratuitous care?
  2. Do you agree with Handley JA's approach to the appellants' submission that the carer's benefit should be deducted from the award for past economic loss?
  3. To what extent did Handley JA allow the appeal in relation to deducting the family allowance from the husband's past economic loss? Do you agree with his reasoning?
  4. What approach to reasoning did Handley JA take (precedential, formalist, purposive, etc)? Identify the parts of his judgment where particular types of reasoning occur.
  5. Does this case follow precedent exactly or does it change the law in some way?
  6. What ratio decidendi do you think this case stands for?