You can download the solution to the following question for free. For further assistance in Law assignments please check our offerings in Law assignment solutions. Our subject-matter-experts provide online assignment help to Law students from across the world and deliver plagiarism free solution with free Turnitin report with every solution.
(ExpertAssignmentHelp do not recommend anyone to use this sample as their own work.)
On successful completion of this assignment, students will be able to:
- Illustrate the principles relating to the law of torts; and
- Explain the principles relating to contract law.
Case Options (lecturer approval required)
- Blackpool & Flyde Aero Club v Blackpool Borough Council (1990)
- Astley v Austrust Limited (2000)
- Marks v GIO Australia Holdings Limited (1998)
- Bridgewater v Leahy (1998)
- Coal Cliffs Collieries Pty Ltd v Sijehama Pty Ltd (1991)
- Cohen v Cohen (1929)
- Demagogue Pty Ltd v Ramensky (1992)
- Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc (2002)
- Waltons Stores (interstate) Ltd. v Maher (1988)
- Foran v Wight (1989) HCA 51; (1989)
- Google Inc v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2013)
- Brisbane City Council v Group Products Pty Ltd (1979)
- Hawker Pacific Pty Ltd v Helicopter Charter Pty Ltd (1991)
- Musumeci v Winadell Pty Ltd (1994)
- National Australia Bank Ltd v Garcia (1996)
- Commonwealth v Amann Pty Ltd (1991)
- Nelson v Nelson (1995)
- Fitzgerald v F J Leonhardt Pty Ltd (1997)
- Amoco Australia Pty Ltd v Rocca Bros Motor Engineering Co Pty Ltd (1973)
- ANZ v Westpac (1988)
- Zhu v Treasurer of the State of NSW (2004)
- Commercial Bank of Australia v Amadio (1983)
- Louth v Diprose (1992)
- Burnie Port Authority v General Jones (1994)
- Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan (2002)
- Mobil Oil Australia Ltd v Wellcome Intern'l Pty Ltd (1998)
- Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre v Anzil (2000)
- Perre v Apand (1999)
- Koehler v Cerebos (Aust) Ltd (2005)
- Horne v Queensland (1995)
- Peter Joseph Haylen v NSW Rugby Union Ltd (2002)
- Flavel v State of SA (2008)
- Tame v NSW (2001)
- Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Ltd (2001)
- Baker v Gilbert (2003)
- Australian Safeway Stores v Zaluzna (1987)
- ACCC v Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi S.R.L. (No 12) (2016)
- ACCC v Online Dealz Pty Ltd (2016)
- ACCC v Snowdale Holdings Pty Ltd (2016)
- ACCC v A.C.N. 099 814 749 Pty Ltd (2016)
- ACCC v CLA Trading Pty Ltd (2016)
- ACCC v Chrisco Hampers Australia Limited (No 2) (2016)
- ACCC v Australian Egg Corporation Limited (2016)
- ACCC v Bunavit Pty Ltd (2016)
- ACCC v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 4) (2015)
- ACCC v Hillside (Australia New Media) Pty Ltd trading as Bet365 (2015)
The facts of the given case (Ashtey V. Austrust)
- Austrut was a company which had started administrating its first trading trust. The motive of the company was to raise finance for a business which dealt with Piggery.
- The business that dealt with Piggery failed.
- This led to Austrust being personally liable for the losses that were occurred beyond the monetary value of the property.
- There was a court case initiated by Austrust against its solicitors that is the Astley as Austrust alleged that Ashtey should have warned them against it.
- Astey was a senior partner in the firm that gave Austrust advice.
- It here refers to the fact that there would be a personal liability of Austrust for the piggery business unless through some means the liability is set to be limited for all the losses that can happen because of the trust.
- The firm which influenced Austrust to start and work towards the given business was also Ashtey.
- The claim that Austrust is making is that with the correct advice from its solicitors that is the ashtey, a better decision would have been made by Austrust, and they would have limited their personal liability.
- The losses that happened amounted to about $1.5 Million.
This was a case of appeal which came to the High Court Australia from the Supreme Court of South Australia. The appeal to the High Court was after two rounds had already taken place at the High Court of South Australia. The first trial took place at the High Court of South Australia under the single judge Mullingham. The next was the appeal to the Supreme court of South Australia full court where there was a three-judge bench comprising of the chief justice and two other judges (Doyle (cj), Olsson and Dugan). The final appeal was in the High court of Australia with a 5 judge bench.
Austrust had taken general legal advice from the Ashtey solicitors whether they should become the trustees of the given company, getting the approval from the solicitors they took office and soon after taking over as the trustees the business venture failed, and Austrust became personally liable to fulfil all the loses that were incurred by the piggery firm. The most basic claim that Austrust made was the solicitors ashtey were brought on board for precisely this purpose to warm them against any such event which Asthey failed to do. If Ashtey had warned them, they would have limited their liability and now would not be responsible for such a huge loss (Mulheron,2016).
One of the first issues that are brought up, in this case, is the case of negligence. The solicitors Ashtey were the solicitors of the plaintiff in this case and were under a contractual agreement to protect the interests of the Austrust. Failing to warn Austrust against the liability that can arise against them if they don’t limit their liability led to heavy loss for Austrust (Shapo, 1999).