A) Plaintiff Catherine & Meghan wants to claim on negligence that Defendant Australia Post owes her a duty of care and so the plaintiff have to provide evidence accordingly.
1) Duty of Care: The defendant, Australia Post, has caused the plaintiff Meghan a heart attack and Catherine a permanent lifetime injury where she cannot walk for the rest of her life because of the defendants’ negligence. The defendant owes a duty of care to its customers and to the society because Australia Post is a monopoly in Australia and so owes a duty of care not only towards its customers but also to the society.
2) Breach: the plaintiff, Meghan ; Catherine, has to establish a breach of duty according to the S5B(1)(2) of the Civil Liability Act (CLA) 2002 as per below:
– Risk or Harm was foreseeable as Harry and Will realised that the parcel looked suspective, so they should have monitored it or should have left it in a locked or a safe place. They did the right thing by informing the police, but as the parcel was not monitored, the snakes escaped out of it which caused harm to Meghan and to Catherine. The risk has been very significant but Harry and Will did not foresee the harm coming with it.
– The risk was significant in this case, as one plaintiff Meghan has suffered a heart attack, and the other one, Catherine, is not able to walk for the rest of her life. both the plaintiffs have undergone a life threatening situation where they both could have potentially lost their lives because of the defendant’s negligence.
– As per S5B(2) CLA 2002, the court will consider the following factors where Harry and Will should have taken precautions against the risk of Harm.
a) The probability of this particular harm occurring if no care was taken.
The plaintiff’s Meghan and Catherine would not have undergone life threatening situations if care was taken in handling the risk involved when the parcel was received.
b) The likely seriousness of the harm has been significant.
This incident has caused both the plaintiff’s a very serious harm as Catherine is now unable to walk for the rest of her life and Meghan has suffered a heart attack, which could have been life threatening as well in both the cases.
c) The burden of taking precautions to avoid the risk of harm.
If Harry and Will would have strictly monitored the parcel and should have not left it unattended as risk was already attached to it as soon as they suspected the parcel.
d) Social utility is relevant because the defendant Australia Post not only owes a Duty of Care to its customers but to the whole Australian society. The plaintiff’s Meghan and Catherine, not being the Australia Post customer in this situation, but have been seriously injured because of defendant’s negligence.
Therefore, Meghan and Catherine are eligible to claim their physical damages that they both have suffered.
3) Damage: under S5D, the plaintiff’s have the below points to prove their case:
– Factual causation
The physical injury would not have occurred to both the plaintiff’s if the breach would not have occurred. Proper actions taken by the defendants would have massively reduced the impact both the plaintiffs have to go through or may not even have occurred at all.
– Scope of liability, is appropriate in this case, as the defendant’s negligent behaviour extended the harm caused to the plaintiff’s Meghan and Catherine.
Defence: Therefore, the defendant, Australia Post, is to be sued for their negligence and ignoring their duty of care to the society by plaintiff’s, Meghan and Catherine for their physical damages.
B) Plaintiff Pablo and his parents Edvard ; Frida wants to claim on negligence that Defendant BNQ owes them a duty of care and so the plaintiff have to provide evidence accordingly.
1) Duty of Care: the defendant BNQ owes a duty of care to the plaintiff’s Pablo and his parents, Edvard and Frida, as it has caused them financial loss because of their unaccredited financial advisor.
2) Breach: the plaintiff, Pablo and his parents, have to establish a breach of duty according to the S5B(1)(2) of the Civil Liability Act (CLA) 2002 as per below:
– Risk was foreseeable as the defendant BNQ’s financial adviser, Merlin, was unaccredited to promote investments in real estate’s
– The risk was significant because the plaintiff, Pablo, is wheelchair bound and so him and his parents were relying on the compensation charges of 3.2M awarded to Pablo, after his accident. Also, his parents were not competent to deal with complex matters so they all three plaintiff’s heavily relied on advice from Caveat, their solicitor.
– As per S5B(2) CLA 2002, the court will consider the following factors where BNQ should have taken precautions against the risk of Harm.
a) The probability of this particular harm occurred as no precautionary measures were taken by the defendant, BNQ. The financial adviser, Merlin, at BNQ, was not authorised to promote Investments in real estate.
b) The likely seriousness of the harm is significant because of the defendants wrong financial advice, the plaintiff’s financial position has been effected where one plaintiff is already wheelchair bound and the other two do not have enough knowledge for complex matters and dealing with business.
c) The burden of taking precautions to avoid the risk of harm.
If the defendant, would have realised his duty of responsible financial advice given to the plaintiff’s, this incident would not have occurred.
d) Social utility is relevant because the defendants action will affect their impression in the society. This will adversely affect its existing customers and anyone who is looking to be a new customer of BNQ. Their own customers will not have faith by any advice given by the defendant.
Therefore, Pablo and his parents are eligible to claim their financial damages that they have experienced.
3) Damage: under S5D, the plaintiffs have the below points to prove their case:
– Factual causation:
The plaintiff’s would not have not suffered the financial damage if the defendant was not negligent of their duty which is giving the plaintiffs the responsible legal advice and not something which the defendant is not even authorised to discuss.
– Scope of Liability: is appropriate in this case as the defendant have taken advantage of the plaintiff’s condition, as one of them is wheelchair bound and the other two were not in a condition to make complex decisions. The defendant even organised trips for the plaintiff’s to inspect the properties and once they were in into buying two of the units, the defendant also suggested them not to contact their solicitor, Caveat, to help them with conveyancing. The defendant organised conveyancing by convincing them that they will be charged less if they deal with their conveyancer, which the plaintiffs believed and did everything according to the defendant’s advice.
Defence: the defendant, BNQ, owes a duty of care to plaintiffs, Pablo and his parents, Edvard and Frida, as they provide financial advice about investment and possible savings and investment plans; but the financial adviser, the plaintiffs were dealing with, was not authorised to promote investment in real estates, and he not only give them the advice, but also helped them with the trips for inspection of the properties and purchase including conveyancing. The plaintiffs put their full faith in the defendant because of their area of expertise, but was mis-leaded by the defendant. Even, Merlin is not working for BNQ anymore, but this incident happened when Merlin was an employee at BNQ and was doing everything under his employer BNQ. So, therefore the defendant, BNQ, owes a duty of care to the plaintiff’s.