v Shire of Hastings [1977] HCA 225 Carr v Berriman Pty Ltd (1953) 89 CLR 327 at 348-9 Codelfa Construction Pty. Ltd. V State Rail Authority of N.S.W [1982] HCA24; (1982) 149 CLR 337 Darlington Futures Ltd v Delco Australia Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 500 at 510; 68 ALR 385 Ellul v Oakes (1972) 3 SASR 377 Equascorp pty Ltd v Glengallan Investments Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 55 Falconer v Wilson (1973) 2 NSWLR 131 Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation [1984] HCA 64; (1984) 156 CLR 41 Laurinda
Premium Contract Contractual term
In order to determine‚ there are three steps must be satisfied. Firstly‚ if the proprietor owed a duty of care to Dylan need to be determined. The cases Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna (1987) 162 CLR 479‚ Strong v Woolworths Ltd (2012) HCA 5 are applied which implied that a retailer owes a duty to its consumers. In this case‚ Quills Department Store is an operating store. Dylan is a lawful consumer. The relationship between them satisfied the neighbour test for duty of care set out in
Premium Contract Tort Duty of care
CARE SUPPORT FETAC LEVEL 5 CAROLINE FILGAS ASSIGNMENT I am doing an assignment on Care Support. In this assignment I hope to show that I have a good understanding of the role of the healthcare worker within the multidisciplinary team in the area of person centred care. I also will show I understand the evaluation of the concept of enhanced quality care. From what I have learned I hope to convey how I can apply my knowledge in a practical way to the patient and that I have total understanding
Premium Health care Patient Nursing
nature of relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff • The plaintiff’s vulnerability- An outraged gathering is helpless if he was not capable of figuring out how to shield himself from the reckless exhibition • See Miller v Miller [2011] HCA 9 2. The Breach of Duty: • A reasonable person has a duty of care toward the other person and would have taken precautions against a risk of harm in any circumstances. i.e.‚ driver owes passengers a duty of care. • The defendant has fail to meet the
Premium Tort Law Tort law
Introduction Injury in the course of employment places significant stress on both the employee and employer‚ Section 8(1) of the Occupational Health a Safety Act 2000 (NSW)‚ states ‘an employer must ensure the health safety and welfare at work of all employees of the employer’ whilst also providing a
Premium Employment
55 (Gibbs CJ‚ Dawson and Wilson JJ). [56] Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth (1951) 83 CLR 1. [66] Koowarta (1982) 153 CLR 168‚ (Gibbs CJ‚ Aickin and Wilson JJ); Tasmania Dam Case (1983) 158 CLR 1‚ 101 (Gibbs CJ‚ Dawson Wilson JJ); XYZ [2006] HCA 25‚ 219 (Callinan and Heydon JJ).
Premium
Inhibitor Agent More research into the chemistry and biochemistry of Hydroxicitric acid extract from Garcinia concluded that it suppresses the fatty acid synthesis‚ lipogenesis‚ appetite‚ and the body weight gain. Extensive studies have shown that HCA extract is a natural‚ safe‚ and no sides effects weight-controlling agent. 4. Increases Serotonin Levels Garcinia has the ability to release and increase the production of the so-called “happiness” hormone‚ serotonin. It fights back depression‚ anxiety
Premium Garcinia Obesity
When property is taken to represent a bundle of rights at the common law‚ then the right to exclude others from the benefits of a property is the leading right of the property owner.[1] This is because only excludable resources can be propertised or have ‘property status’. That is‚ without an excludable nature‚ resources cannot be legally regarded as property.[2] Thus‚ it can be held that property ‘consists primarily in control over access’.[3] As a dynamic concept‚ the scope and nature of
Premium Property Ownership
Hawkins v Clayton [1988] HCA 15; (1988) 164 CLR 539 (8 April 1988) High Court of Australia Case Title: HAWKINS v. CLAYTON [1988] HCA 15; (1988) 164 CLR 539 F.C. 88/012 Medium Neutral Citation: [1988] HCA 15 Hearing Date(s): 1987‚ May 13 1988‚ April 8 Decision Date: 20 June 2011 Jurisdiction: High Court of Australia Before: C.J Mason J. Wilson J. Brennan J. Deane J. Gaudron Catchwords: Negligence - Duty of care - Solicitor - Will held by solicitor
Premium Tort Supreme Court of the United States Law
Dental amalgam Sandra Bērziņa Definitions Amalgam: alloy of mercury with one or more other metals Amalgam alloy: alloy which combines with mercury to form amalgam Dental amalgam alloy: alloy that is combined with mercury to form amalgam used for dental purposes Dental amalgam • Dental amalgam has been the most widely used material for the restoration of posterior teeth due to: – High strength and durability – Ease of use – Good physical characteristics • However‚ its use
Premium Silver Zinc Copper