Analysis of Criminal Penalties in Strong v Woolworth Case Study

This report delves into the realm of criminal law, specifically focusing on criminal penalties and their implications, using the case of Strong v. Woolworth Ltd as a central example. The report begins with an introduction to criminal law and the imposition of penalties for wrongdoing, including imprisonment and compensation. It then presents the case of Strong v. Woolworth Ltd, where a plaintiff, Ms. Strong, sustained injuries after slipping on a wet floor in a Woolworth store. The report analyzes the duties and responsibilities of Woolworth, as the occupier of the premises, and highlights the breach of these duties, leading to the plaintiff's injuries. The report also examines the court's decision, emphasizing the negligence of Woolworth and its liability to compensate Ms. Strong. Furthermore, the report explores the concept of negligence, the duties of directors, and the consequences of failing to meet these duties, drawing upon additional cases like Donoghue v. Stevenson and Smith v. Van Gorkom to illustrate key legal principles. The report concludes by summarizing the key findings and reiterating the importance of adhering to legal responsibilities to avoid criminal penalties. The report emphasizes the importance of care and diligence in fulfilling legal obligations to avoid negligence and its consequences.

CRIMINAL PANALTIES

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................................3
TASK .......................................................................................................................................................................3
1. Case introduction............................................................................................................................................3
2. Duties or responsibilities and when they breached.........................................................................................5
3. Analyse the decision of court..........................................................................................................................7
CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................................................7
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................................8

INTRODUCTION
Criminal law is related with the crime which is done by the person for the purpose
court imposed penalties on them. The person who conducted wrongful act is known as
criminal who is liable to compensate for the act done by him. Criminal penalties are imposed
by the legal authorities for the purpose of wrongdoing. Penalties must be imposed equal to
the mentioned under the law (Clinard and Yeager, 2011). Which can include imprisonment
and compensation amount. In the given scenario, strong is the plaintiff who slip on the floor
of Woolworth and through which she cased major injury. In order to receive compensation
she filed claim against company. And on the other hand, firm is liable to pay compensation to
plaintiff for the damages. As per the negligence act, one party is responsible to take care other
parry, if they failed to do so them liable for the penalties which are mentioned under the law.
TASK
1. Case introduction
ISSUE
In case Strong v Woolworth Ltd, 2012, Woolworth is able to operated a Big W store
which is established at NSW shopping centre which is owned by CPT manager limited. It can
give exclusive right to Big W in order to conduct side walk sales. CPT is comes in the
contract with the cleaner in order to clean common areas in each and every 15 minuets. After
cleaning of side walk sales area, Woolworth is responsible to conduct inspection and identify
the area which is remains left for cleaning. Because of same reason an accident has been
incurred in the premises (Dutton, 2011). Strong, an amputee her part of left leg she already
lost and used to walk with the help of crutches. She enter into the side walk sales area at
around 12:30 p.m. She fall down on the slippery floor when tip of her right crutch is comes
in the contact of floor. Through this serious injury has been caused to her. In order to receive
compensation she claim file against Woolworth. According to law the defendant is liable to
pay compensation to plaintiff for the injury which is caused to them due to negligence.
Because the duty of inspection after cleaning is imposed on the defendant.
RULE
As per the negligence act one person is responsible to take care another person. If they
failed to do so then they are liable to pay compensation to another party (Das, 2011). The

penalty has been imposed on them equal to which is mentioned under the law. Government is
empowered by law to frame some various types of rules, policies and regulation which have
to be follow by all parties. They needs to follow the rules which are imposed on them as per
the law (Warren, Chiricos and Bales, 2012). For the same purpose they needs to maintain
their performance and try to comply with the procedure of legal act.
In the above mentioned case, defendant is responsible to fulfil his duty which are
imposed on him. Due to his negligence another party is got injured. Criminal penalties are
imposed on defendant because he is liable to perform but failed to do so. Woolworth is the
occupier is the premises so that he is responsible to perform duty. With the help of using
appropriate methods and skills, persons are needs to complete their target and objectives as
well in appropriate time and manner (Force, Davies and Force, 2010). In the given scenario,
defendant is responsible to take care people who are enter into the premises for any reason. In
that case he is not comply with the law and not follow the responsibility which are imposed
on them. The case Strong v Woolworth Ltd, 2012, is arises because of negligence of one
person who are considered as defendant. Different rules are imposed on them which are
beneficial for them or able to imposed penalties on them.
Case: In case Donoghue v Stevenson, 1932, in this it has been stated that, for claim against
any person claimant needs to defines some factors such as defendant under an duty to take
care, that duty is breached by him, due to breach plaintiff caused damages and the injury is
not able to remote.
Criminal penalties are imposed on the person who is considered as criminal as per the
law. According to law, there are two types of offences such as cognizable and non cognizable
offences. Both types of offences are punishable under the law, cognizable are stated as non
bailable offence, there is no need to arrest warrant. Police can arrest criminal without any
warrant (Motomura, 2011). For example; A shoots B with gun and B died on the spot. In that
case A is consider as criminal and penalties are imposed on him. On the other hand, non
cognizable offence is related with bailable offence in which bail is provided to the criminal
by the police. In which police needs to take arrest warrant for arrest any person. For example;
X stole wallet of Z which consists 200 dollars. There is no bodily harm but damages caused
to the Z. So that, penalties has been imposed on him which are mentioned under the law.

2. Duties or responsibilities and when they breached.
APPLICATION
Valid appointment of a person as director is considered as director of the company
(Durlauf and Nagin, 2011). But in some cases even though their is no valid appointment his
nomination is considered valid as he acts in a position of director. In some cases a person will
be considered for this position if he is holder of controlling or majority stock.
Duties of director:
Care and diligence: As a seat holder in top management he has to be very careful
regarding acts of the company and persistent in his work. Continuous efforts should be made
to maintain the goodwill of a company.
Good Faith: Good faith is one of the most important duty a director has to perform as
avoiding, revealing and managing conflicts in appropriate time is important (Bader,
Desmond, Carson Mencken and Johnson, 2010). Conflict of interest should always be taken
care, if happens.
Improper use of position: Power of the post should never be used for improper
purpose. Integrity should always be maintained and powers should be use to run company
properly.
Improper use of data: Internal data of company should never be utilised for self
benefit or should never be disclosed in market. Data is very important for operations of
company so a high level of secrecy should always be maintained.
Responsibilities of director: He is responsible to mainly shareholder and stakeholder
who appoint him to operate and grow company. Directors are responsible for managing the
company’s day-to-day business so they have to establish broad policies and set out strategic
objectives. It is their responsibility to make annual return and keep proper accounting records
with table accounts, balance sheet and director's report at AGM. Setting the salaries of senior
management with all the benefits and compensations they are entitled is also their
responsibility (Robson, 2010). They should keep an eye on companies trading at the time of
insolvency and stop trading immediately, and in worst case scenario if company is getting
wound up than they have to report to the liquidator regarding all companies affairs and help
him by providing necessary documents.

Case: Smith v. Van Gorkom, in this case it has been defined that, directors are responsible to
fulfil their duties which are imposed on them as per the law. The supreme court discussed
that directors are responsible to take care their employees and other persons and have to fulfil
their duties as well. The court found that directors are refused to perform their duty which is
able to create negligence.
The duties has been breached when directors are refused to perform their duties for
which they are bound to follow (Loughran, Paternoster, Piquero and Pogarsky, 2011).
Various types of implication they have to follow if non performance of duties. Directors are
act like an employees for the company. Firm have to compensate for wrongful act of them.
Some complication are as aligned below:
Removal from company- If any complication is arises due to non performance of duty
then company is able to remove him from the employment. Appropriate notice must be
provided to them for their removal.
Responsible for compensate- Staff members are responsible perform their duty which
are imposed on them. Their main duty is to take care other person but they failed to do so
then they have to compensate to the plaintiff and have to fulfil their duties as well.
Duties has been breached due to following reasons:
By mistake- The duties are breached by directors by mistake but for that they have to
some complications which are imposed on them as the law. In this condition there is lack of
intension of directors so that which is not be considered as fault under the law.
With intention- The duties are breached when intention of wrongful act has been
present in the action of directors. So the same purpose persons are responsibly to compensate
to injured party and try to meet their provision of law.
Due to negligence- When staff members are becomes careless then this type duties
are breached which are considered as illegal according to the law.
Case: The case Condon v Basi, 1985, arise due to breach of duty of care, in which defendant
conduct high degree of carelessness. For the same purpose plaintiff file claim against another
party in order to receive compensation amount.
3. Analyse the decision of court.
On the basis of given case scenario, strong got injured when she entered into the Big
W due to slippery floor (Criminal Penalties. 2016). The Woolworth is responsible to conduct

inspection after cleaning the floor. The Woolworth is liable to the injury of strong. The hight
court is able to examined the case and concluded that the staff members are able to take care
people who are enter into the premises. But after that plaintiff needs to prof some points
which are as aligned below:
Defendant is responsible to take care- According to the negligence act plaintiff needs
to prof in the court that defendant is responsible to take care the him. As the members of the
company defendant is able to care for the people are comes in the premises.
Breach duty- The duty which are imposed on them has been breached by them.
Plaintiff must be prof that the duty have to be follow by the Woolworth but he is not able to
follow the same.
Damages- Strong needs to explain in the court that when she enter into the premises
injury caused to her due to slippery floor. When crutch is comes in the contact of slippery
floor then she fall down and got serious injury (Criminal Penalties and Other Provisions.
2017). With the negligence of Woolworth strong got injured it has been clear in the high
court.
Injury not able to remote- Plaintiff needs to clear in the court that the injury which
caused to her is not able to remote by any person.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of above report it has been concluded that, criminal penalties are
imposed on the criminal who is considered as criminal as per the act. According to the
negligence liabilities government frame rules and policies which have to follow by every
person and try to conduct their duties which are related to he law. Penalties are imposed equal
to the as mentioned under the law or defined by the government. The person is responsible to
take care another person but failed to do so then they are liable to pay compensation to the
other party. In the given Strong got injured with the negligence of Woolworth, filed case
against him for the same reason so that, defendant is able to amount for the damages which
are caused to plaintiff.

REFERENCES
Books and journals
Bader, C.D., Desmond, S.A., Carson Mencken, F. and Johnson, B.R., 2010. Divine justice:
The relationship between images of God and attitudes toward criminal
punishment. Criminal Justice Review. 35(1). pp.90-106.
Clinard, M. and Yeager, P., 2011. Corporate crime (Vol. 1). Transaction Publishers.
Das, A., 2011. The Immigration Penalties of Criminal Convictions: Resurrecting Categorical
Analysis in Immigration Law. NYUL Rev., 86. p.1669.
Durlauf, S.N. and Nagin, D.S., 2011. Imprisonment and crime. Criminology & Public
Policy. 10(1). pp.13-54.
Dutton, D.G., 2011. The domestic assault of women: Psychological and criminal justice
perspectives. UBC press.
Force, R., Davies, M. and Force, J.S., 2010. Deepwater Horizon: removal costs, civil
damages, crimes, civil penalties, and state remedies in oil spill cases. Tul. L.
Rev., 85, p.889.
Loughran, T.A., Paternoster, R., Piquero, A.R. and Pogarsky, G., 2011. On ambiguity in
perceptions of risk: implications for criminal decision making and
deterrence. Criminology. 49(4). pp.1029-1061.
Motomura, H., 2011. The discretion that matters: Federal immigration enforcement, state and
local arrests, and the civil-criminal line. Immigr. & Nat'lity L. Rev.. 32. p.167.
Robson, R.A., 2010. Crime and punishment: rehabilitating retribution as a justification for
organizational criminal liability. American Business Law Journal. 47(1). pp.109-
144.
Warren, P., Chiricos, T. and Bales, W., 2012. The imprisonment penalty for young Black and
Hispanic males: A crime-specific analysis. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency. 49(1). pp.56-80.
Online
Criminal Penalties and Other Provisions. 2017. [Online]. Available through.
<http://www.investopedia.com/exam-guide/series-63/administrative-provisions/
criminal-penalties-provisions.asp>. [Assessed on 16th May 2017].
Criminal Penalties. 2016. [Online]. Available through.
<https://www.utcourts.gov/howto/criminallaw/penalties.asp>. [Assessed on 16th May
2017].