Lady Whistledown & Simon Basset Case Study - Law Assignment Help

Assignment Task

Task

CITATIONS
In the submission you should provide a full citation using the Australian Guide to Legal Citation for any case or other material you refer to the first time you cite it. Subsequently a shortened version of the citation may be used. The AGLC specifies the appropriate way in which to do this.

QUESTIONS

1. Lady Whistledown owns a country estate and each summer over a week she holds a rock music carnival in the cause of world peace. She holds her ‘Summer of Love’ carnival during the long weekend in July, attracting crowds of campers, concession-holders and fans. Rock and Reggae fusion bands from 10 am until 4 am each day of the long weekend while crowds dance, sing along and queue for the very sparse toilet facilities.
Neighbours Benedict, a farmer, and Lady Danbury are unable to sleep at all while the music is playing. Vehicles are parked all along the nearby roads, blocking some and obstructing Benedict’s driveway. The floodlights from the carnival grounds shine into Benedict’s farmyard and disrupt the sleep of the animals. On Sunday at midday, in a magnificent gesture, Lady Whistledown opens a wicker basket releasing 100 doves. These only fly as far as Lady Danbury’s residence where they settle on the roof, commence to ‘coo’ in unison and foul the walls and path below. Lady Danbury’s niece, 22-year-old Sienna, who is visiting, is highly allergic to birds and the influx of doves around the premises causes her to have an anaphylactic reaction.
Analyse these situations from the perspective of the tort of private nuisance only, including in your answer potential defences (if applicable) and remedies.

2. Early in the morning of the day after the ‘Summer of Love’ festival, which was also coincidentally the first day of the duck season, Lady Danbury took her (legally owned) gun, her spaniel ‘Spring’ and a folding chair out for a spot of duck shooting on her property. She walked down to the
wetlands at the far end of the property and sat awaiting sunrise, taking the occasional sip from her thermos of strong black coffee. At sunrise she rose from her chair and walked into the water, carefully aimed at a rising duck and shot it precisely. After that a large number of ducks rose
from the water and she bagged several. At this point Henry Granville, one of the guests at the ‘Summer of Love’, arrived on the scene. Henry was a passionate animal liberationist. He confronted Lady Danbury. Standing on the shore shaking his fists, he yelled loudly:

‘You old bat, how dare you shoot these beautiful creatures. When I get my hands on you you’ll feel like one of those poor ducks. Just you wait.’
Lady Danbury was a bit shocked that somebody would be on her property telling her what to do,but she wasn’t scared. She replied:
‘Get off my land you long-haired excrement. If you were my son I’d put you over my knee.’ Henry was incensed at this reply, as his long hair was a great source of pride. ‘You hag! One more crack like that and I’ll wrap you around a bullet from your own gun!’ Henry began to stride into the water. He was a large man (over 194 cm tall and 100 kg) with long red hair and enormous fists. He would be well able to overpower Lady Danbury, who was only 167 centimetres. Lady Danbury was not scared, but the dog ‘Spring’ ran at Henry barking menacingly. Unfortunately as the dog ran forward he tripped Lady Danbury, who fell. Her firearm discharged and Henry was hit in the shoulder.
Analyse these situations from the perspective of the tort of trespass to the person only, including in your answer potential defences (if applicable) and remedies.

3. Simon Basset had been employed as the manager of a university research division for ten years.
The division was involved in researching nanobot technology, developing commercial applications, and forming partnerships with industry to exploit the technology. His job involved obtaining grant funding from government, managing accounts, recruiting and supervising staff and negotiating and implementing industry partnerships. Along with all other parts of the university, Simon’s division was subject to audit every year by the university accounts department and their external auditors, but in 2021 the division came under additional scrutiny as a result of a university review of all industry partnerships. The review was overseen by a committee consisting of university employees, industry representatives and a Member of Parliament, Cressida Cowper. 

The review was carried out by external contractors, Bridgerton Consulting. Anthony, the principal of the firm, carried out the review by looking over documentation relating to the division. However, he overlooked crucial files involving industry partnerships, which for reasons of confidentiality were kept in the office of the University Solicitor. He failed to notice that the files were referred to in various other documents and should have known of their existence. As a result of this oversight, he mistakenly assumed that Simon had overstated income from industry partnerships. He wrote a scathing draft report on the division, saying, in part:

In view of the maladministration, both historic and current, of this division and in view of the uncertainty as to whether University and Government funding is being appropriately applied, we recommend that the division be placed under the administration of an auditor until the expiration of all current industry partnerships. Anthony sent a copy of the draft report, by email, to all members of the review committee, marked ‘in confidence, draft only’. Although the reference was corrected in the final report, the draft report was tabled in Victorian Parliament by Cowper, who used it as an instance of ‘massive corruption in Victorian universities.’

As a result of this, the share price of the industry partners who had been developing the nanobot technology dropped substantially, and one became the subject of an aggressive takeover. The University itself suffered enormous losses, but they were able to recover these from an indemnity from Anthony. Simon, however, was stood down from his position (with pay) pending an enquiry. Whilst the enquiry exonerated him, he feels that the report has damaged his chances of promotion within the university, or of obtaining an equivalent position elsewhere. His reputation with the industry partners has been irreparably damaged.
Analyse these situations from the perspective of the tort of defamation only, including in your answer potential defences (if applicable) and remedies.

This Law Assignment has been solved by our Law Expert at My Uni Paper. Our Assignment Writing Experts are efficient to provide a fresh solution to this question. We are serving more than 10000+ Students in Australia, UK & US by helping them to score HD in their academics. Our Experts are well trained to follow all marking rubrics & referencing Style. Be it a used or new solution, the quality of the work submitted by our assignment experts remains unhampered. 

You may continue to expect the same or even better quality with the used and new assignment solution files respectively. There’s one thing to be noticed that you could choose one between the two and acquire an HD either way. You could choose a new assignment solution file to get yourself an exclusive, plagiarism (with free Turn tin file), expert quality assignment or order an old solution file that was considered worthy of the highest distinction.