Background of Shorten V Grafton District Golf Club case

In this case, a 13 year old boy Shorten went to play the golf at the Club’s golf course, and while playing the game, shorten went to recover the ball which had been landed in the rough. Shorten clearly notice that group of Kangaroos feed in the grass at the same place where ball was landed, but he ignored this and entered into the rough for the purpose of getting the ball. At that time Shorten was attacked by the large grey kangaroo and suffered injuries.

The evidence presented by the plaintiff clearly show that club knows about the risk related to the Kangaroos in context of the attacking the person playing the golf, and almost 4 golfers had previously been attacked while playing the golf. Plaintiff further states that club has taken the permission to cull the aggressive kangaroo, and after the attack done on Shorten by the Kangaroo, a small warning was stated on the board for the golfers playing at the club. In this case, Shorten file case of negligence against the club.

Trail judge in this case decided that club owned duty towards the Shorten, but still they had not breached that duty. In this context, Shorten file appeal against this decision in the Court of Appeal.

There were almost two main issues which required to be resolved by the Court of Appeal:

• Whether club own any duty in context of providing adequate warning to the golfers in terms of risk of attacking by the Kangaroos?
• What standard of care was expected by the club for the purpose of preventing harm to the golfers from the aggressive Kangaroos?

In this case, Court held that duty of care of the club also includes the obligation to give adequate warning to the golfers. Court further stated that club fails to meet standard of care, and liable towards the Shorten.

Date of the case: This case was decided on 23/03/2000

Court of the case: Court of Appeal of New South Wales

Cause of Action in this case: The cause of action of this case was Tort of Negligence on part of the golf club.

Judges of the case: This case was decided by the Fitzgerald JA & Priestley JA.

Judge of the District Court:

Case relied upon by His Honour Fitzgerald JA: in this case, Fitzgerald held that club fails to obliged with the standard of care required by the Act, and also fails to take adequate measures for the safety of the golfers against the risk of aggressive kangaroos. In this case, judge applied the principles of negligence. Duty of care of the club also includes the obligation to give adequate warning to the golfers. Court further stated that club fails to meet standard of care, and liable towards the Shorten.

Two main issues resolved by the Court of Appeal

Part 2

9 Australian Acts Interpretation legislations: Following are the 9 Acts with their locations:

Acts Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW)

Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Common law)

Interpretation Act 1954 (Queensland)

Interpretation Act 1915 (South Australia)

Acts Interpretation Act 1987 (Victoria)

Acts Interpretation Act 1931 (Tasmania)

Acts Interpretation Act 1984 (Western Australia)

Acts Interpretation Act 1901 – Sect 15AA: This section defines the provisions related to the provisions related to the interpretation best achieving purpose or object of the Act. Section 15AA states that, while interpreting the provisions of the Act, that interpretation which achieves the purpose or object of the Act in best manner would be preferred as the interpretation for the purpose of this Act. It must be noted that, it does not matter whether the purpose or object of the Act is specifically stated in the Act or not.

In other words, only that construction is preferred under this Act which promotes the purpose and object of the Act.

Holiday under the Acts Interpretation Act 1901: For the purpose of this Act, holiday in context of the time for doing a thing actually means, any day which is declared as public holiday in the place in which the thing is to be or might be done. In case things are done or might be done at any specific office or any other place, then holiday is considered as that day on which office or that place is closed for the complete day.

According to the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 when would a person attain the age of 18: Section 37A of the Act states the provisions related to the attainment of the particular age. This section states that, for the purpose of any Act, the time at which any person reaches the specific age expressed in years is the starting of the pertinent anniversary date of the birth related to that person.

Part 3:

Explain the difference between case law and legislation: Following is the difference between the case and legislation:

Explain how each made:

Explain which has the higher authority and why: In case there is any dispute between the common law and legislation then legislation will always prevail, because elective representatives of parliament holds the supreme power to make laws. Therefore, it can be said that parliament can override the decisions made by the common law by passing any new legislation or by making relevant changes in the existing law (HCLS, n.d.).

Part 4:

Academic misconduct is considered as any action that might create an unfair academic advantage for the individual itself or unfair advantage or disadvantage for any other member of the academic community. In terms of the Kent Institute, it is expected from the students that they maintain the actual spirit of the policy. Any breach related to the policy defined by the institute will be considered as misconduct or serious misconduct which might result in expulsion for students or dismissal on part of staff.

In terms of this paper, plagiarism is considered as the type of academic misconduct, and there are number of ways through which this type of misconduct can be occurred:

• Copying the idea and work of any another person such as from other students, and from other material which is published like books, websites, journals, etc.
• Student submits the work which is previously submitted or assessed by the student.
• Student submits the work which is assessed and conducted by any other person.
• Student fails to incorporate the adequate resources in their file.

Plagiarism and duplication of the material are stated below, and both these forms are stated under the regulations as an example of breach of normal regulations:

• Plagiarism means reproduce any work which is submitted for the purpose of assessment and review, or any material which is get from the work of any other author and fails in acknowledging that source. This can be understood with the help of example, examination answers, essays, project reports, dissertations or theses.
• Duplication of Material: Student reproduce the submitted work, which means, student use the adequate amount of work in any other work for the purpose of assessment (University of Kent, n.d.).

References:

Caxton, (2016). Common Law versus Legislation. Available at: https://queenslandlawhandbook.org.au/the-queensland-law-handbook/the-australian-legal-system/where-law-comes-from/common-law-versus-legislation/. Accessed on 10th August 2018.

Charrington, B. (2003). Foreseeability and casual links: Golfing Liability. Available at: https://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/PlaintiffJlAUPLA/2003/80.pdf. Accessed on 10th August 2018.

Doyles construction lawyers, (2000). SHORTEN V GRAFTON DISTRICT GOLF CLUB. Available at: https://doylesconstructionlawyers.com/casewatch-list/shorten-v-grafton-district-golf-club/. Accessed on 10th August 2018.

HCLS. Legislation vs Common Law. Available at: https://www.hobartlegal.org.au/handbook/the-criminal-justice-system/the-law/legislation/legislation-vs-common-law/. Accessed on 10th August 2018.

Interpretation Act 1901- Section 15AA

Interpretation Act 1901- Section 37A

Shorten v Grafton District Golf Club [2000] NSWCA 58

University of Kent. What is plagiarism?. Available at: https://www.kent.ac.uk/ai/students/whatisplagiarism.html. Accessed on 10th August 2018.