Exercise 015 | Law

Exercise 015

Annetts & Anor v Australian Stations Pty Ltd [2000] WASC 104 (28 April 2000)

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

Easy questions

  1. How would you cite the case?
  2. What type of case was this - civil, criminal, appellate, first instance?
  3. In what court was the case held?
  4. Can there be an appeal from this case? If so, to what court?
  5. What was the name of the judge?
  6. Who were the:
    1. defendants?
    2. plaintiffs?
  7. Who were counsel for:
    1. the defendants?
    2. the plaintiffs?
  8. What were the plaintiffs seeking?
  9. What were the facts of the case?
  10. Define the following terms (using your legal dictionary):
    1. writ
    2. negligence
    3. tortious duty of care
    4. tortfeasor

More difficult questions

  1. What was the legal question in the case?
  2. Why did the Judge go into the history of cases related to the legal question at issue, rather than merely referring to the most recent case? What does this say about the law of precedent?
  3. What was the judge's opinion on the current state of the law in relation to liability in negligence?
  4. What were the components of the test for determining liability in negligence?
  5. Set out the judge's approach to the requirement for proximity in determining whether a duty of care exists?
  6. Describe the cases in which the requirement for presence at an event or its immediate aftermath are discussed.
  7. What cases did the judge use to support his contention that there is no uniform stand regarding shock brought about by communication from a third party in Australia?
  8. What was the judge's reasoning in deciding that the plaintiffs were not sufficiently physically close to the event of their son's death to give rise to a duty of care owed by the defendant?

Complex questions

  1. What approach to reasoning did the judge take? ie. Precedential, formalist, purposive, etc
  2. Do you think the judge's approach to determining the state of the law in relation to the duty of care was correct?
  3. Do you agree with the judge's opinion that the concept of proximity is now of little use in determining whether a duty of care exists?
  4. From the cases in which the requirement for a presence at an event or its immediate aftermath are discussed, what do you think the state of the law is in relation to this issue?
  5. How did the judge apply the tests of proximity, aftermath and the means by which the shock is caused to the question at issue in the case?
  6. Did the judge follow precedent exactly or does this case change the law in some way?
  7. What proposition of law does this case stand for?