Business Law: Shorten v. Grafton District Golf Club NSWCA 58 Case and Australian Acts Interpretation
Added on 2023-06-09
7 Pages1644 Words272 Views
|
|
|
Business Law 1
BUSINESS LAW
by
Student
Name
Course
Instructor
Institution
Date
BUSINESS LAW
by
Student
Name
Course
Instructor
Institution
Date
Business Law 2
Business Law
PART A
What was the date of this case?
The Shorten v. Grafton District Golf Club NSWCA 58 case took place on March 23,
2000.
What court was this case heard in?
This case was heard in Supreme Court of New South Wales-Court of Appeal (Lunney &
Oliphant 2013, pp. 83).
What was the cause of action in this case?
In this case, Shorten, a 13 year old boy was attacked by kangaroos while trying to collect
a ball while playing at Grafton Golf Club and he suffered injuries. The boy had noticed a group
of kangaroos feeding on grass where the ball had landed; however, he had no issue with the
Kangaroos. Therefore, Shorten sued the club because of negligence. The judge in the trial in the
case established that the Grafton club owed a duty of care to the appellant (Shorten) it had not
violated that duty. Consequently, Shorten went to the court of appeal. The finding in this case
was that the duty of care by the Grafton club comprised a duty to caution golfers regarding the
threat of hostile kangaroos. The judge verdict was also based on the principle that it was apparent
that warnings could have been effortlessly notified, as well as suitably stressed at practically no
cost or inconvenience to the Grafton Golf Clu. Significantly, the judge considered that the golf
club understood both the danger to players. In addition, as the threat to golfers could be reduced
Business Law
PART A
What was the date of this case?
The Shorten v. Grafton District Golf Club NSWCA 58 case took place on March 23,
2000.
What court was this case heard in?
This case was heard in Supreme Court of New South Wales-Court of Appeal (Lunney &
Oliphant 2013, pp. 83).
What was the cause of action in this case?
In this case, Shorten, a 13 year old boy was attacked by kangaroos while trying to collect
a ball while playing at Grafton Golf Club and he suffered injuries. The boy had noticed a group
of kangaroos feeding on grass where the ball had landed; however, he had no issue with the
Kangaroos. Therefore, Shorten sued the club because of negligence. The judge in the trial in the
case established that the Grafton club owed a duty of care to the appellant (Shorten) it had not
violated that duty. Consequently, Shorten went to the court of appeal. The finding in this case
was that the duty of care by the Grafton club comprised a duty to caution golfers regarding the
threat of hostile kangaroos. The judge verdict was also based on the principle that it was apparent
that warnings could have been effortlessly notified, as well as suitably stressed at practically no
cost or inconvenience to the Grafton Golf Clu. Significantly, the judge considered that the golf
club understood both the danger to players. In addition, as the threat to golfers could be reduced
Business Law 3
through a warning to the club had failed to meet the pertinent standard of care (Plunkett 2018,
pp. 49).
Who were the judges in this case?
The judges in this case were Priestley, J.A., Fitzgerald, J.A., and Heydon, J.A.
Who was the judge in the District Court?
The judge who was dealing to the case in the District Court was Wallace J.
What was the case relied upon by His Honour Fitzgerald JA?
In this case, Fitzgerald JA relied on the fact that the respondent failed to warn the golfers
of danger of harm from the kangaroos where they were unconscious of this danger. This judge
established that this amounted to breach of the respondent’s duty of care to the individuals
golfing in the club, although the danger was small (Lunney & Oliphant 2013, pp. 84).
Part B
Locate and name the 9 Australian Acts Interpretation legislations.
The following are the interpretation acts in Australia: Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW),
Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (Vic), Interpretation Act 1931, Interpretation Act 1978,
Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), Interpretation Act 1915, Interpretation Act 1999, Interpretation
Act 2001, and Interpretation Act (1901) (Cth) (Latimer & CCH Australia Limited 2011, pp. 34).
What does ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 15AA state?
through a warning to the club had failed to meet the pertinent standard of care (Plunkett 2018,
pp. 49).
Who were the judges in this case?
The judges in this case were Priestley, J.A., Fitzgerald, J.A., and Heydon, J.A.
Who was the judge in the District Court?
The judge who was dealing to the case in the District Court was Wallace J.
What was the case relied upon by His Honour Fitzgerald JA?
In this case, Fitzgerald JA relied on the fact that the respondent failed to warn the golfers
of danger of harm from the kangaroos where they were unconscious of this danger. This judge
established that this amounted to breach of the respondent’s duty of care to the individuals
golfing in the club, although the danger was small (Lunney & Oliphant 2013, pp. 84).
Part B
Locate and name the 9 Australian Acts Interpretation legislations.
The following are the interpretation acts in Australia: Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW),
Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (Vic), Interpretation Act 1931, Interpretation Act 1978,
Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), Interpretation Act 1915, Interpretation Act 1999, Interpretation
Act 2001, and Interpretation Act (1901) (Cth) (Latimer & CCH Australia Limited 2011, pp. 34).
What does ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 15AA state?
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents
Business Law: Shorten v Grafton District Golf Club & Acts Interpretation Legislationslg...
|6
|1798
|82
Business Law Case Summary, Acts Interpretation Legislations, Academic Misconduct Policylg...
|7
|1484
|297