LAW3501 - Dispute Resolution and Ethics Interim Assignment

Assignment Task

Goals

1. Show that they understand the purpose of pleadings and pre-trial processes;

2. Demonstrate that they understand and can apply the rules regarding pleadings and pre-trial processes;

3. Show that they understand and can apply the rules regarding disclosure and privilege of documents;

4. Engage in critique of pleadings and explain appropriate responses to issues identified;

5. Demonstrate understanding of the concepts of material facts and fair notice in civil process;

6. Demonstrate strategic awareness in procedural advice, including the capacity to predict likely outcomes, the utility of specific material in context, and cost implications of actions;

7. Communicate succinctly and coherently in a professional legal voice;

8. Plan to utilize pre-trial processes in an appropriate and strategic manner;

9. Articulate sound justifications and reasoning for their decisions;

10. Support arguments with clear reference to facts, relevant rules, and cases;

11. Plan and produce a well-structured document articulating procedural principles;

12. Identify and engage appropriately with ethical issues in civil procedure.

Part

1. Introduction by Applicant

On 23rd February 2024, Dorian Gray (the Applicant), was entering a pop-up market located on the Barr Smith Lawns (the lawns) on the North Terrace Campus (the Campus) of the University of Adelaide (the Respondent). The Applicant was entering from the northern end and attempted to jump a low temporary fence that had been erected around the lawns. The Applicant tripped on the fence and fell heavily, severely injuring his arm and ribs. The injuries were caused by the negligence of the Respondent.

2. Background/uncontroversial Matters

1. At all material times the Respondent occupied the Campus and was responsible for the upkeep of common areas, including walls and walkways.

2. The Applicant was a student arriving on the Campus for O-Week celebrations that had been organized by the Respondent.

3. The Applicant entered the Campus at approximately 11.00 pm from the gates on Victoria Drive.

4. The Applicant was heading in a Southerly direction when he noticed a pop-up market on the Barr Smith lawns.

5. There was a crowd at the market and bargain prices for fabulous items, so the Applicant was enticed to enter with as much haste as possible.

6. The quickest way to enter was over a low temporary fence surrounding the lawns. Given the enticement and the crowd blocking alternative routes, the Applicant was left with little choice but to jump the fence.

7. The Applicant misjudged the height of the fence. His toe clipped the fence, he tripped and put his arms out in front of him to break his heavy fall.

8. The Applicant screamed in terrible pain and several witnesses rushed to his aid. The witnesses commented that they heard the crunch of his bones and that it looked like a really bad fall.

9. One witness said they knew something like this would happen because everyone was jumping the fence that day.

10. The Applicant was admitted to the hospital later in the evening on 23rd February 2023.

11. The Applicant suffered extensive injuries and underwent surgery that night.

12. The applicant had limited function in his wrist and required a period of rehabilitation and physiotherapy.

13. He had to withdraw from university and was unable to continue his part-time job at a swim school.

3. Other facts forming the basis of the claim

14. The Respondent owed the Applicant a duty of care, which was breached. The Applicant’s injuries were caused by the accident on 23rd February 2024 and were a direct consequence of the Respondent’s negligence and were reasonably foreseeable.

15. The Respondent breached its duty of care in that it knew that students and other entrants to its premises were jumping the temporary fence surrounding the lawns. The Respondent knew that there was a risk that someone might be injured by jumping the fence and failed to take adequate steps to prevent this from happening.

16. Specifically, the Respondent did not ensure:

a. proper warning signs on the temporary fence;

b. adequate access to the lawns other than over the fence; and

c. the fence was a safe height.

17. As a result of the accident, the Respondent has ongoing medical bills, pain and suffering, lost opportunity, and lost income.

4. Orders sought

1. $550,000 damages

2. Court fees $2943

3. Interest

4. Costs

5. Any other order that the Court sees fit.

Questions

1. Any deficiencies in the draft Statement of Claim and how they can be corrected. Also, provide advice about whether you think that there would be a stronger claim against Rex and if so if you recommend pursuing this claim as well (or instead)? Why or why not?

2. A summary of how you anticipate the Respondent might respond if the Statement of Claim is filed in this form. Include a discussion of any short-term procedural steps the Respondent might take and a short analysis of any substantive defenses you think the Respondent may raise.

3. Any ethical or other challenges that you have identified with the proposed case and the draft documents.

4. Mx Tan has asked you to prepare a second memo detailing whether your firm needs to hand over the interview notes. Consider whether Rex’s lawyer is entitled to these and what arguments might be made to resist handing them over.

This LAW3501 – Law has been solved by our PHD Experts at My Uni Paper.