Case summaries PDF

Preview

Summary

Case summaries...

Description

Imagine you are working in a law library and you have been asked by one of the lawyers to provide a summary of the three cases because they are relevant to cases the lawyer is working on. Write a brief case summary of each case that you think will help the lawyer understand decisions. THE IMPACT OF PLAGIARISM ON ADMISSION TO THE BAR: RE LIVERI [2006] QCA 152 The parties involved are Ms Liveri who is the applicant as she applied to the Legal Practitioners Admissions Board for a declaration of suitability of admission and The Legal Practitioners Admissions board [respondent]. Or is Ms Leveri the appellant? Appealing to her previous rejections from the board. The facts of the case- On the 29th of November 2004 the applicant applied to the Legal Practitioners Admissions Board for a declaration of suitability of admission. Section 36 of the Legal profession Act 2004 (Qld)1 made this possible. The Board declined the application because Liveri had been detected plagiarising in three assignments during her time as a law student. As a result Liveri was suspended from her job with a law firm. Liveri applied for admission on the 14th of October 2005. On the 11th of April 2006 Liveri again applied for admission. The main issue-There was no dispute to whether plagiarism had occurred, but whether the plagiarism was serious enough to make to applicant unfit for admission. Court findings- To decide whether an applicant is unfit to be admitted to the bar, the court considered... The seriousness of the plagiarism, number of times it occurred, the age of the applicant and the applicant’s unwillingness to acknowledge the seriousness of her misconduct. The court found the comparison with other people and submissions not particularly helpful, but did make reference to Re AJG18. The court emphasised in future findings that the court will need to be persuaded on appropriately cogent material that a finding of fitness is warranted. ‘A failure to disclose a history of academic misconduct in itself may render someone unfit to practice’.

1

Balfour v. Balfour. CA [Case summary/brief] 1919 June 24,25.. The parties involved- Mr and Mrs Balfour. The plaintiff Mrs Balfour sued her husband the defendant under an alleged verbal agreement. Mr Balfour undertook allowing her 301. Per month. The husband was a resident in Ceylon, where he held a government appointment the plaintiff accompanied Mr Balfour and the couple went back to England in 1915 Mr Balfour being on leave. In 1916 Mr Balfour went back to England leaving his wife in England. The plaintiff obtained a decree nisi for restitution of conjugal rights and an order for alimony. On July 30th 1918 Mrs Balfour the plaintiff obtained a decree nisi. On December 16 1988 she obtained an order for alimony. Sargent J gave judgement for the plaintiff. The husband then appealed. The agreement was purely. Warrington L.J referred to lush on husband and wife, 3rd ed., p.386. The key issue was ‘Whether such a contract was made between the husband and wife.’ The two parties never intended to make a contract enforced by law’. Legislation relevant is the Married Woman’s Property Act, 1882. Duke L.J found the previous judgement to lead to ‘unlimited litigation in a relationship’. The appeal was allowed. Atkin L.J. - Parties did not intend that they should be attended by legal consequences. The appeal was allowed as neither party contemplated such a result. Representation- Solicitors for appellant: Lewis & Lewis. Solicitors for respondent: Sawyer and Withall, for John C.Buckwell, Brighton. Appeal allowed

2

Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd v Nicole Marie [2013] ACTSC 255 (16 December 2013) This case is on appeal from the Magistrates court of the Australian Capital Territory No. SCA 39 of 2013. Judge J Burns. Supreme Court of the ACT Parties to the dispute- Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd [Appellant]. Nicole Marie Harris [respondent]. Since 7 December 2009, the worker was certified as totally incapacitated to work. The workers average pre incapacity weekly hours were 18 and her weekly earnings were $429.65. Section 39 of the Workers Compensation Act (WCA) as it states the worker is entitled to compensation during the first 26 weeks of incapacity. Section 40 of the WCA provides workers to compensation after the initial 26 weeks. This case is a worker’s compensation case based on statutory interpretation. Appeal from magistrate’s court. Legislation relevant to the appeal is s 41 and 42 of the Workers Compensation Act 1951. Legislative intention behind the act is to provide compensation to injured workers and encourage rehabilitation. The issue of this case is whether the term national minimum wage in the definition of statutory floor is a reference to the weekly minimum wage only, or whether it is permissible to use the hourly rate where an injured worker was working less than 38 hours per week prior to their initial incapacity date. The appellant argued that the use of an hourly rate for the purpose of calculation of the entitlements of part time workers best achieves the overall purpose and objectives of the Workers Compensation Act 1951. This claim was made in response to changes made commencing 1 July 2002. A previous judgement in The King v Bechet1688. It was made that when interpreting statutes that no clause, Phrase, sentence or word shall prove superfluous void or insignificant, if by any other construction they may all be made useful and pertinent.

Judgement/order- The court ordered the appeal be dismissed and the appellant pay the costs of the respondent’s costs appeal.

3...