Assessment task 1 will primarily assess your IRAC skills (i.e. the ability to identify the legal issue, the ability to identify legal rules, and the ability to apply the legal rules to solve legal problems). The assessment will examine the topic of the tort of negligence.
LAW2447 _ Business Law Course _ Assignment Task _ RMIT University Commercial Law - LAW2447 Case Note Guide: How to Write a Good Case Note? A What is a case note? In a case note assessment, students will be provided an actual judgement (usually a shortened version), and required to write a note about the case A case note is a critical analysis of a court’s judgment It means you have to analyse whether the case (the judgement), in your opinion and by reference to your own logical and legal analysis, was correctly decided Case note is given as an assessment task because it is an analytical exercise Preparing a case note can help you not only understand the law, but also develop various legal skills, particularly, the ability to identify the legal issue, the ability to identify legal rules, and the ability to apply the legal rules to solve a legal problem (so-called IRAC skills) Case note is thus a learning assessment You learn legal knowledge and legal skills in doing this assessment B Structure of a Case Note I Introduction Begin forcefully - a few lines may suffice for the introduction You should briefly introduce the case that you will analyse (e.g., case name, the court in which it was decided, date of the judgement, and the judges decided the case) II Identification of the legal issue(s) In this part, you should briefly address the following questions: Who are the Plaintiff and Defendant? o Note: in an appellate judgment, the person who appeals the decision by the primary court (the court first decided the case) is called appellant and the other person, the person who does not appeal the decision by the primary court, is called respondent Thus, the terms plaintiff and defendant are not used in an appellate judgement What has gone wrong and for whom? LAW2447 _ Business Law Course _ Assignment Task _ RMIT University What argument(s) made by the plaintiff was/were the focus of this decision? What was/were the legal issue(s) that was/were examined by the judges in the case? III A critical analysis of the judge’s application of the legal rules to solve the legal issues This is the most important part of your case note and has the majority of marks Thus, you need to analyse the court’s reasoning and decision critically, creating an argument (as to whether the case was correctly decided) Analysis is often where you encounter the most difficulty Remember – analyse, not describe Remain objective, but not be afraid to express original ideas If the judges’ reasoning makes sense, say so and support your conclusion If not, say so and support your statements fully by logic, authority, or, where possible, by both While you neednot agree with the court, remember you need not always disagree In this section, you should focus on addressing the following questions: What are key analyses that the court has made in its application of the legal rules to solve the legal issues Critically analyse whether these analyses are logical and convincing? Are there legal issues and arguments that are raised in this case but the court did not consider? Who won the case? Having evaluated and analysed the case, would you agree/disagree with that determination? Explain why Be original Demonstrate your ability for deep thinking and analysis IV Conclusion Briefly reinforce your argument as to whether the case was correctly decided without simply regurgitating it to the reader Do not introduce new material or arguments C Other important requirements for the case note: The case note needs to be written in full: no dot points, no table format or any LAW2447 _ Business Law Course _ Assignment Task _ RMIT University other note-taking style is permitted The quality of writing is much more important than the length Students are required to use their own words to discuss and analyse the judgement Direct quotation of the judges’ language is highly discouraged, and will be given a low mark Please use your own words and ideas in your assignments If you borrow (including using exact words or paraphrasing) someone else's work, particularly words, ideas, and arguments, you should cite the original source from which the words, ideas, or arguments are taken As your instructors, we understand that in a law essay, we refer to legal rules frequently and Turnitin tends to pick up the legal rules as similarity It is an advice for you that when you refer to a legal rule in your writing, please cite the source of the legal rule properly If you so, similarity with the legal rules will not be counted The case note must contain appropriate referencing following the Australian Guide to Legal Citation, 3rd edition, or AGLC3 Detailed instructions about referencing can be found on Canvas LAW2447 _ Business Law Course _ Assignment Task _ RMIT University LAW2447 _ Business Law Course _ Assignment Task _ RMIT University LAW2447 _ Business Law Course _ Assignment Task _ RMIT University LAW2447 _ Business Law Course _ Assignment Task _ RMIT University LAW2447 _ Business Law Course _ Assignment Task _ RMIT University LAW2447 _ Business Law Course _ Assignment Task _ RMIT University LAW2447 _ Business Law Course _ Assignment Task _ RMIT University 10 LAW2447 _ Business Law Course _ Assignment Task _ RMIT University Commercial Law – LAW2447 Assessment Task – Case Note Introduction This case was the judgment of Cavanagh v SYD Matthews & Co Pty Ltd in term of tortious law The Court that accountable for the case was the District Court of Western Australia The Judge was Jenkins DCJ, who provided the judgement reasonably Identification of the legal issues Trevor Paul Cavanagh, the plaintiff, who was employed as a sheep carter by SYD Matthews & Co Pty Ltd, the defendant On 13 December 1995, the unfortunate accident occurred when the plaintiff climbed up the crate to unload two final sheep from the silly pen, without protective equipment, but he failed The plaintiff opened the external gate to lean into the silly pen, and successfully pushed one of them out Unfortunately, he was hit by the remaining sheep and fell out of the crate The plaintiff got the left ankle, head, and back injuries with a writhing pain and trauma Consequently, plaintiff argued that the defendant had duties to protect plaintiff’s safety because employer didn’t provide warnings or training for risk evasion that made him suffering serious injuries However, the defendant claimed the contributory negligence existence Therefore, the Judge will concern with the legal issues as whether the defendant owe a duty of care and breach a DOC to plaintiff, whether defendant violate the tort of negligence, or whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent Critical analysis of the judge’s application of the legal rules to solve the legal issues The judgment declared that the defendant owed a duty of care to plaintiff due to the DOC established category (employers v employees) I believe that the Judge made an exact and endorsed decision, after considering Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman1 In this case, the Judge heard from some experienced sheep carters about their experiences of falling out the crates and their witnesses, decided that the probability of harm was moderate I Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman (1985) 59 ALJR 564; 60 ALR 11 LAW2447 _ Business Law Course _ Assignment Task _ RMIT University see this judgment is fairly subjective because the judge only relied on the narration of some witnesses, not based more on transparent evidence like statistics of accident reports per month or year to give comprehensive and objective decisions It’s rare for an experienced carter to be attacked by sheep when unloading them because sheep are considered gentle, and they just become aggressive, and ferocious to hit carters when they have suffered bad conditions or be frightened, stated by S7 of the Act2 Hence, I think the probability of harm should be low Some such incidents happened due to the lack of professionalism in monitoring sheep I agree with the judgment that the risk of falling from a crate at height is significant because a falling from 2-meter-height or more is adequate to cause serve injuries, serious sequela, or psychological trauma for casualties, under Worthing v Rowell & Muston Pty Ltd3 The plaintiff fell from 2.5 meters so his injuries were evidently serious and reasonably foreseeable Furthermore, I disagree that it was expensive and difficult for defendant to provide harness security system for the plaintiff Actually, the harness system was developed from 1940s and safety was certified by Australia Industrial Safety Belts and Harnesses in 1970 Consequently, the employers were responsible to supply harness system for their employees when working from a height to avoid unfortunate accidents, delivered by S19 of Act Under Australia Standards, all workers are required to wear protective harness when working from meters or more Thus, there will be no reason for defendant refusing to provide harness system for the plaintiff A reasonable employer had to provide sufficient precautions, innocent equipment, training for all employees to encourage safety, productivity and professionalism at workplace, claimed by Paris v Stepney Borough Council5 Applying “but for” test, whether the defendant prepare adequately for plaintiff to prevent risks, he would not fall out crate and get injuries because he had enough comprehension and protection to shirk risks The defendant argued that as a reasonable person and experienced worker, the plaintiff had to be aware of all possible risks while working However, I approved the judgment that the plaintiff hadn’t contributory negligence In my opinion, he only worked based on his own experiences learning from other people around him without any formal training Accordingly, whether he was working in a wrong and unprofessional way, he couldn’t recognize failure that becomes his problem-solving practice and reverberation He cannot handle unexpected accidents because he lacked technical skills and depth knowledge of efficient labor and danger evasion In my perspective, the plaintiff won in this case and the defendant had to bear the tortious liability for plaintiff’s injuries Conclusion: To conclude, I agree with the judgment that the defendant have breached the duty of care to plaintiff and violate the tort of negligence after critically analyzing and arguing the Livestock Management Act 2010 (Cth) s7 Worthing v Rowell & Muston Pty Ltd (1970) 123 CLR 89 Occupational Safety and Health Act, 1984 (WA) s19 Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951) AC 367 12 LAW2447 _ Business Law Course _ Assignment Task _ RMIT University relevant legal issues in this case However, I pointed out some shortcomings in judgement by stating my argumentation, but not affect significantly to the final decisions References Livestock Management Act 2010 (Cth) s7 Occupational Safety and Health Act, 1984 (WA) s19 Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951) AC 367 Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman (1985) 59 ALJR 564; 60 ALR Worthing v Rowell & Muston Pty Ltd (1970) 123 CLR 89 13