Select Page

Step 1. Place your order

Fill in the order form and provide all details of your assignment.

Step 2. Make Payment

Choose the payment system that suits you most.

Step 3. Receive your paper

Once your paper is ready, we will email it to you.

Due Date: Weight: Length: Sunday 28 August 2022 before 11:59pm (AEST – Sydney/Me

by | Aug 5, 2022 | Law | 0 comments


Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by our team of experts, At affordable rates

For This or a Similar Paper Click To Order Now

Due Date: Weight: Length: Sunday 28 August 2022 before 11:59pm (AEST – Sydney/Melbourne/Canberra Time) 30 marks (30% of unit total) Maximum 1500 words in total: approximately 750 words per problem question (excluding cover sheet and footnotes). This Assignment comprises two compulsory hypothetical problem questions. Each problem question is worth 15 Marks. You must answer BOTH problem questions. Problem 1: Suppose you are a Judge presiding over the District Court. You hear the facts of a case, which are as follows: The Green family went out for dinner at ‘Le Chic Escargot’ Restaurant in Armidale to celebrate their daughter/sister Tina’s 18th birthday. The family enjoyed the five-star dining experience and for dessert, they all enjoyed the birthday cake, beautifully baked and decorated by the head chef at the restaurant. That is, until Meg Green, Tina’s mother, bit into the birthday cake. Meg became worried by something unusual that seemed to be crunchy and chewy. Meg looked down to the remainder of the cake slice on the plate and she was horrified to see half of a large, dead cockroach embedded in the slice. Meg became immediately ill. She stood up from her seat and collapsed on the floor. She was rushed to hospital by ambulance vomiting and in shock. Meg brought a claim against the owner of the restaurant for negligently causing her to suffer the illness and the complications arising from the nervous shock she endured as a result of the incident. Meg was successful in her claim in negligence against the café owner. As the Judge, are there any binding and/or persuasive precedents which you could refer to in your reasons for judgment that would hold the restaurant owner liable for Meg’s illness? If so, what are they and why would you use them? (Ie, how are the precedent/s that you have used relevant to the facts of Meg’s case?) Problem Question 1 relates only to the application of the Common Law and Precedent. You do not need to refer to any legislation, only case law. 1 Problem 2: Assume, hypothetically, that the following Act exists: Armidale National Park (Restriction of Entry) Act 2022 (Cth). Assume also that this Act contains the following sections: Long Title: “An Act to restrict traffic in the Armidale National Park for the protection of flora, fauna and visitors in the park”. [Assented to 1 July 2022] … 3 Objects of Act The objects of this Act are: (a) to protect the public and their enjoyment of the park; and, (b) to protect the unique flora and fauna within the park; and, (c) to restrict vehicle use within the park. 4 Definitions In this Act “vehicle” shall include cars, trucks or other means of transport. 5 No Vehicle Permitted No vehicle shall be permitted entry into the Armidale National Park. 6 Powers of Rangers A ranger may direct any person in or using a vehicle to leave the park. If that person fails to do so within a reasonable time, they may be guilty of an offence under this Act. … 28 Penalties Any person who uses a vehicle within the Armidale National Park or is directed by a Ranger to leave the park and does not do so may be guilty of an offence under this Act. Penalty: $2000 fine and/or imprisonment for up to two years. The Commonwealth Minister for the Environment in a second reading speech to the Lower House of Parliament, prior to the enactment of the Armidale National Park (Restriction of Entry) Act, states the following: “We have been concerned for some time that the Armidale National Park, which is on Crown Land, enjoyed each year by thousands of bushwalkers, cyclists and family picnickers, is being ruined by heavy traffic. This Legislation will restrict vehicular access to the Park so that users of the Park will be able to continue to enjoy the Park in years to come”. 2 This Bill passes as the Armidale National Park (Restriction of Entry) Act 2022 (Cth) to commence on 1 July 2022. Jason, who has been cycling through the park every weekend for the past twenty years, is asked to leave by a ranger after entering the park on his bike the weekend after the commencement of the Act. He refuses and is charged pursuant to this Act. You may assume the dictionary defines the word “vehicle” as: 1. Any receptacle, or means of transport, in which something is carried or conveyed, or travels; 2. A carriage or conveyance moving on wheels or runners. “Convey” is defined as “to carry or transport from one place to another”. “Conveyance” is defined as “the means of conveyance, especially a vehicle, a carriage or motor car etc”. How might a Magistrate interpret and apply the Armidale National Park (Restriction of Entry) Act 2022 (Cth) in Jason’s situation when Jason appears in Court regarding this charge? Justify your answer in light of how statutes are to be interpreted by the Court and the facts of Jason’s case. You should refer primarily to the modern approach to statutory interpretation noting that the modern approach ‘is to be preferred’ to any other approach (ie Common Law approaches). Keep in mind that Section 15AA of the Commonwealth Acts Interpretation Act 1901 provides: In interpreting a provision of an Act, an interpretation that would best achieve the purpose or object of the Act (whether or not that purpose or object is expressly stated in the Act) is to be preferred to each other interpretation. Problem Question 2 relates only to statutory interpretation. You do not need to refer to any case law, only to the given portions of the hypothetical Act. You MUST use the modern approach to statutory interpretation and then you should consider whether a Magistrate would need to go beyond the modern approach and apply any of the common law approaches to assist in the interpretation. END OF ASSIGNMENT TASKS 3 Problem 1: MARKING CRITERIA Your markers will be paying particular attention to the following criteria: – Selection of relevant and appropriate precedent/s; – Ability to relate facts to relevant precedent/s; – Quality of explanation of the relevance of selected precedent/s to facts of this case. Problem 2: – Quality and accuracy of analysis of the legislative intent; – Demonstrated comprehensive connection of the facts to the interpretation of the legislation; – Demonstrated understanding of the application of the modern approach and any other relevant common law approach; Both Problems: – Logical structure; Utilisation a structured/legal problem solving framework (eg IRAC: define Issue; Relevant Law; Application to the Facts; Conclusion); – Quality and appropriateness of legal reasoning; – Appropriate introduction/s & conclusion/s; – Organisation including use of appropriate headings and subheadings; – Writes appropriately according to purpose and audience; – Written in plain English and easy to understand; – Proofed: accurate spelling, grammar and punctuation; – Answers the task set and stays on point; – Accurate use of AGLC4 with citations and footnoting; – Has referenced work and has not copied or utilized material without appropriate referencing; – Stays within set word limit. (NB The word count does not include appropriate footnoting, headings or sub-headings. However, where footnoting is included as a substitute for additional commentary, this will not be marked). END OF MARKING CRITERIA

For This or a Similar Paper Click To Order Now


We encrypt everything. It’s all confidential.

Secure Payment

Sleep tight: each transaction is encrypted and 100% secure.

Ready to get started?