LAW6000 - Business and Corporate Law

Running head: LAW6000
LAW6000
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

LAW60001
Question 1
Issue
The issue in the given scenario is whether Manjit will be successful in relation to the
action that might be taken by him against Magic.
Rule
The case of Corporation v Abramovic [2007] NSWCA 248 is a relevant case in this
regard. In this particular case, it was stated that an employer may owe responsibility to show care
towards any independent contractor if a situation arises where there is a connection between both
the independent contractor and the employer, in relation to the job that is in progress.
The case of Rasic v Cruz [2000] NSWCA 66 is a significant case in relation to the given
scenario. In this case, it has been stated that a responsibility to care, which has been imposed by
Common Law, may be considered to take care as any particular rational and practical individual
would. It has been mentioned that there may be several circumstances that might create a
foreseeable and predictable risk regarding injury and it is possible to reduce or eliminate such
risk or harm. The law in relation to negligence has been developing constantly. The foundation
regarding negligence law has expanded from a mere ‘responsibility to care’ to ‘responsibility to
take rational care’ to ‘responsibility to evade any risk or danger with the help and assistance of
available and reasonable methods’.
The case of Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Company Pty Limited [1986] HCA 1 is
considered to be a relevant case in this regard. It has been mentioned in this case that if situations
arise where there exists a risk or danger of any harm or injury in relation to the nature of the job,

LAW60002
then it shall be the responsibility of the employer to provide directions and guidelines regarding
the manner and ways in which the work shall be executed. It shall be the responsibility of the
employer to prescribe guidelines in relation to a safe and secured method of work.
Application
Applying Corporation v Abramovic [2007] NSWCA 248 it may be said that it shall be
the responsibility of Magic to show rational care towards Manjit.
Applying Rasic v Cruz [2000] NSWCA 66 it may be said that it shall be the
responsibility of Manjit to evade any risk or danger with the help and assistance of available and
reasonable methods.
Applying Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Company Pty Limited [1986] HCA 1 it may be
said that Magic has forwarded guidelines in relation to a safe and secured method of work.
Conclusion
In conclusion it may be said that Manjit shall not be successful in relation to any action
that might be taken by him against Magic.
Question 2
Issue
The issue is whether Sheila will be able to impose or implement the judgment in
contradiction to Digital Ltd.
Rule