Lan Anh V Saigon – Australian Club (act) Limited

RMIT International University Vietnam

Bachelor of Business Program  

ASSIGNMENT COVER PAGE

Your assessment will not be accepted unless all fields below are completed

Introduction

The case note that we will analysis which is about Lan Anh v Saigon – Australian Club (ACT) Limited. The case which was judged by Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory on 9 April 2010 by Master Harper.

There are 5 main parts of case note which are Introduction, Identification of legal issues, Identification of a relevant legal rules which were applied by the judge, Acritical analysis of the judge’s application of the legal rules and Conclusion.

Identification of the legal issues

In this case which is Lan Anh v Saigon – Australian Club (ACT) Limited, Lan Anh was plaintiff who was born in 1967. She was thirty-one at the time in 1999 that incident occurred when she was a guest at the wedding reception at the club. The defendant is Saigon – Australian Club represented by Garry McLaughlin who was secretary-manager of the club from 1997 to 2001. On 27 March 1999, Lan Anh came as a guest to a wedding reception at the club in Franklin Street, Forrest.

At the end of evening, when she was leaving a reception to go home and carrying a daughter who was about fifteen months old. Unfortunately, she lost her footing and fell which lead to suffering serious personal injury.

After the incident, Lan who is the plaintiff sued Saigon – Australian Club which is defendant for damages for negligence. The plaintiff stated that the accident would not have happened if the tiles was not greasy and portico structure could protect the tile area outside front door from wind and rain.

When examined the case, the judge has analyzed whether the plaintiff has contributory to her negligence or the defendant has the duty of care toward for the plaintiff.

Identification of the relevant legal issues applied by the judges

In this case, for the duty of care of the defendant to the plaintiff, the judge has applied Australian Safeway Store Pty Ltd v Zaluzna (1987) 162 CLR 497 at 4881, Hackshaw v Shaw (1984) 155 CLR 614 at 6632 and Jones v Bartlett (2000) 205 CLR 1663. Next, for the breach duty of care part, the judges used Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40 at 47-48 per Mason J4, Woods v Multi-Sport Holding Pty Ltd (2002) 208 CLR 4605 and Neindorf v Junkovic (2005) 222 ALR 631 per Hayne J at [93]6. Furthermore, for foreseeable risk of harm, Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan (2002) 211 CLR at 611-612 per Gummow and Hayne JJ7 was applied by the judge.

By applying these principles above, the judge has concluded that defendant won the case because of the plaintiff’s injure^[1]s which was not caused by any negligence of the defendant.

A Critical Analysis of the Judge’s application of the legal rules to solve the legal issues^[2]

In this case, the judge has made some key analysis in concerning to decide whether the plaintiff’s injures was cause by any negligence of the defendant. First, for the duty of care, the judge has made clear that the relationship between the defendant and plaintiff had been recognized as occupier and guest. Next, for breaching the duty of care, the judge has made clear that the probability of harm is slim to none because there is no reported or case about the fall on the tiles in the club which had rising awareness for Mr McLaughin who is secretary manager from 1997 to 2001. The judge also taking expert evidence which noted that tiles had been made for slip resistant at that time that there is no Australian standard for slip resistance. Furthermore, for contributory negligence, the judge stated that the plaintiff has acknowledged that tiles were wet and greasy but she had done nothing to prevent incident to happened. In conclusion, the judges had decided that the defendant had not breach duty of care and caused harm for the plaintiff ‘s injures which is made by her carelessly.