Comprehensive Case Analysis: CEFN Genetics Pty Ltd v. Ted - Civil Law

This case study analyzes a civil law dispute between CEFN Genetics Pty Ltd and Mr. Ted concerning property encroachment. The case involves the illegal expansion of CEFN's property onto Mr. Ted's land, leading to a lawsuit. The analysis follows the IRAC method, examining the facts, issues, rules, application, and conclusion. Key issues include trespassing, property rights, and the application of the Property Law Act 1974 and the Law of Tort. Mr. Ted's claims are assessed based on legal principles related to property law and negligence, with a focus on the defendant's duty of care and the resulting damages. The analysis explores the legal principles of trespassing and negligence, referencing relevant legislation and case precedents. The conclusion highlights the need for CEFN to compensate Mr. Ted for the damages incurred due to their negligence. The case underscores the importance of respecting property rights and adhering to legal procedures, and emphasizes the potential consequences of disregarding these principles.

CIVIL LAW CASE ANALYSIS
Student Name: Student ID:
Subject Name: Student ID:
Date Due: Professor Name:
1

Table of Contents
1.0 Facts...........................................................................................................................................3
2.0 Issues..........................................................................................................................................4
3.0 Rules and Relevant Law............................................................................................................5
4.0 Application................................................................................................................................6
5.0 Conclusion.................................................................................................................................6
6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................................................................................................7
2

Case Overview: CEFN Genetics Pty Ltd Company has illegally expanded its property which led
to Mr. Ted to sue them. Mr. Lee and Mr. Danny’s Company CEFN Genetics Pty Ltd set up the
firm beside Mr. Ted’s house. When Mr. Ted was travelling to UK with his family, to his dismay
he found trees in his garden has become a part of the Company’s park project in Brisbane. Mr.
Lee and Mr. Rogers were called to the court in Queensland1. Below is the case analysis as
undertaken.
1.0 Facts
 Case Name: CEFN Genetics Pty Ltd V BAKS & Another
 Parties Involved: Mr. Lee and Mr. Rogers, owners of CEFN Genetics Pty Ltd along
with Mr. Ted, who has filled suit are parties in the case.
 Sufferer: Mr. Ted suffered losses as
 How: During absence of Mr. Ted, Mr. Lee stated to his old friend Mr. Roger that Mr.
Ted had given permission to remove trees and convert it into a car parking for the
Company2. This falsification of information or tort led to harming of Mr. Ted by
encroaching on his property. Thus, Mr. Ted suffered loss to his property, which led him
to file a suit against the Company.
 Why?: The property that was encroached by the Company purposely without any prior
information. Moreover, the property that was encroached belonged to Mr. Ted’s house.
The situation was totally avoidable if the Company had obtained prior information and
had not built any construction on Mr. Ted’s property.
 What is the known (relevant) information?: The case provides all relevant and
pertinent information related to the case.
 Is there any missing information? All information is clear in the case and there was
missing information related to monetary value, which has been lost due to the
encroachment.
 Include specific details like dates and monetary figures: Court for the case was 20
1 R v Costanza 1997
2 Mohamed and Another v Busoka
3

Floor 6, Date: 18 June 2018, Time: 10:00 am and Judge Name: JS Douglas.
2.0 Issues
 Identify the problem: what has gone wrong and for whom?: The problem lies in
property that has been encroached of Mr. Ted. During absence of Mr. Ted, the plaintiff,
the accusers Mr. Lee’s Company CEFN Genetics Pty Ltd has committed a civil wrong
doing. The wrong doing is disputable as per Property Law Act 19743. As Mr. Ted was not
aware during the act committed by the accuser hence it can be regarded as a tort also.
 Name each Plaintiff and Defendant and briefly describe their individual issues: The
plaintiff Mr. Ted had a house located just beside CEFN Genetics Pty Ltd. His issue was
that his area of his house was encroached by the Company to form a car parking space for
the same.
The Defendant CEFN Genetics Pty Ltd in the absence of Mr. Ted had wrongfully
removed some trees that were present in the house to build a car parking space for them.
Mr. Lee of the Company states that Mr. Ted had provided permission to the Company for
the same.
 Work out what area of law may govern the resolution of the problem: Areas of law
that will govern the resolution for the stated problem is Law of Tort and Property Law
Act 1974. The Property Law will help analyse encroachment problem that have occurred
and Law of Tort for the civil wrong doing to Mr. Ted4. The Law of Tort of Negligence
due to trespassing can be applied to this case and plaintiff can claim for losses suffered.
3 Property Law Act 1974 (QLD)
4 Salmond, J. W., & Heuston, R. F. V. (1977). Salmond on the Law of Torts
4

3.0 Rules and Relevant Law
 Set out the legal principles that will be used to address the problem: The legal
principle that will be applied to resolve this case is law of tort of trespassing and Property
Law. This case will be similar to Mohamed and Another v Busoka (PC CIVIL APPEAL
NO. 112 OF 2002) [2006] TZHC 7 (3 February 2006) where plaintiff had suffered losses
in property5. In this case also Mr. Ted is suffering losses to his property due to extension
of the Company CEFN. Moreover, according to the Property Law in Australia of Section
184, an owner has all rights over his property and any trespasser can get sued legally for
encroachment.
 Source legal principles from cases and legislation: Legal and common laws is present
that protect privacy which can protect against physical intrusion6. Trespassing to
someone’s land or intrusion into property can trigger actionable course of action. In case
of recognizable form of damage then claimant might establish the same in the court of
law. In case of the wrong occurred, and in cases of any real harm maintained, or by
method for comfort or vindication of his or her rights, it is highlighted ‘General’
damages, and often substantial, are awarded in order to compensate the claimant. In case
there is unique mortification of the petitioner by the defendant award might be related to
Aggravated damages. In case the defendant acting maliciously or intentionally also, in
self-important or contumelious dismissal of the inquirer's rights, award might become for
Exemplary or punitive damages. The defendant, Mr. Lee’s Company expansion in this
case, while trespassing on land, in spite of the fact that harms have been esteemed a
satisfactory cure in cases including business endeavors, Claimants might seek injunctions
to restrain without authorization. As in famous Venning v. Chin case, the decision of
High Court of Australia was established. Though it was a case of road accident yet
Hogart J. established it with common law case.
5 Barker, Kit, et al., The law of torts in Australia
6 Stickley, Amanda P. Australian torts law
5

4.0 Application
 The Plaintiff’s claims are (or are not) justified, based on the body of law pertaining
to the case:
 Law is used by each party to argue their case?: The plaintiff has made use of tort law,
which implies a civil wrong doing. According to this law, the individual suffers wrong or
injury as in this case wrong, due to which the court will assists the plaintiff to get
compensation7. Law of tort is a private law as CEFN has by negligence caused harm to
Mr. Ted by intruding wrongfully in his land area. According to tort of Negligence, a legal
action can be considered in case there is a duty of care owed. Breach of the duty causing
damages resulted in plaintiff suing the defendant. CEFN had duty of care to remove tress
from Mr. Ted’s house. The defendant however failed to deliver standard of care as it built
parking space in the area. Damage to the plaintiff is not too remote, meaning that Mr. Ted
will face direct consequences from reduction in space of the property of his house.
According to Civil Liability Act, the defendant owes some liability not to intrude upon
space of a8. Avoiding of foreseeable risks and breach of duty of care resulted in defendant
acting in a careless manner and not abiding by Property Law.
5.0 Conclusion
From the above case analysis, it can be understood that Mr. Ted need to claim for damages
suffered from CEFN Company. He was not aware of intrusion taking place in his property and he
also suffered from turning his house property area into car parking space. CEFN needs to pay for
7 Law of Property Act (NT)
8 Real Property Act 1900 (NSW)
6

damages done primarily due to negligence from duty of care and property law as has been
discussed. Parties could have avoided the legal case, in case CEFN had approached Mr. Ted
directly or Mr. Ted would have approached CEFN directly to resolve their issues.
6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. Articles/ Books
Barker, Kit, et al., The law of torts in Australia. (Oxford University Press, 2012).
7

Stickley, Amanda P. Australian torts law. (LexisNexis Butterworths, 2016)
Salmond, J. W., & Heuston, R. F. V. (1977). Salmond on the Law of Torts. (Sweet & Maxwell).
B. Cases
R v Costanza 1997
Mohamed and Another v Busoka (PC CIVIL APPEAL NO. 112 OF 2002) [2006] TZHC 7 (3
February 2006)
C. Legislation
Property Law Act 1974 (QLD)
Law of Property Act (NT)
Real Property Act 1900 (NSW)
8