Exercise 010 | Law

Exercise 010

Trespass: Plenty v Dillon and Will [1997] SASC 6372 (19 September 1997)

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

Easy questions

  1. What is the citation of the case?
  2. In what court was the case heard? Where does this case fit in the hierarchy of courts?
  3. Who was counsel for the plaintiff?
  4. Who was counsel for the defendants?
  5. What was the context of the judgment - the type of case and whether first instance or appellate?
  6. What were the material facts of the case?
  7. What was the outcome of the case?
  8. Could there be an appeal from this decision?

More difficult questions

  1. What was the plaintiff seeking?
  2. What is the legal issue in the case?
  3. What were the grounds of appeal?
  4. What were the previous proceedings that led to this current proceeding and what was the outcome?
  5. What is the difference between exemplary and aggravated damages?
    1. What are the different justifications for an award of each kind, and what type of award is warranted in each case?
  6. What justification did the judge give for an award of each type of damages?
  7. What was the judge's opinion as to the appropriate test for consequential damages?
  8. Which test/s did the judge apply to determine whether the cause of the plaintiff's illness should lead to an award of consequential damages?
  9. What was the judge's opinion as to the behaviour of the defendant in response to the trespass?

Complex questions

  1. What approach to reasoning does the judge use - precedential, formalist, purposive, etc?
  2. Do you think the judge's reasoning in relation to his definition of aggravated and exemplary damages was correct?
    1. Do you think his award of each type of award in this case was justified? Why?
  3. Do you agree with the judge that the plaintiff would succeed on either test described for consequential damages? What supports his position?
  4. Do you agree with the judge's opinion that there was a causal link between the 'disfellowship' and the trespass? Explain his reasoning.
  5. Do you agree with the judge's opinion that the 'disfellowship' was both reasonably foreseeable and a natural and reasonable consequence?
  6. Did the judge follow precedent in this case?