• October 29th, 2015

Torts Case Analysis

Assignment Requirements

Sources are provided as they are two cases in the question.

Please read the Case Analysis question, read the two cases and see the sample answer for layout and style required. <Marking criteria in the Question.

 

Case Analysis

  1. Read the judgment of the NSWSCA in Rankin v Gosford City Council [2015] NSWSCA 249 (25 August 2015), and:

 

  1. a) briefly outline the material facts of the case;
  2. b) identify the relevant legal issue/s raised;
  3. c) explain the process of reasoning adopted by Basten JA and the conclusions that he reached; and
  4. d) explain how, if at all, the reasons offered by MacFarlane JA added to those of Basten JA.

 

  1. Explain, with reasons, whether Basten JA was correct to distinguish Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales v Refrigerated Roadways (2009) 77 NSWLR 360.

 

(NB, as a rough guide approximately 15-20% of your paper should be devoted to question II.)

 

CRITERIA FOR MARKING

The following criteria for marking, measured against the grade descriptors set out on p10 of the Course Handbook, will be applied (there is no specific weighting given to each):

 

  1. The accuracy of the analysis and summary of the case and reasoning.
  2. The structure and organisation of the case analysis, including the logical flow of the discussion, use of headings, etc.

 

  1. The quality of arguments and reasoning used.
  2. The quality of the writing, including grammar, spelling and proofreading.

 

  1. The accuracy and consistency of referencing.

 

Order Now

YOU CAN ALSO PLACE OTHER SIMILAR ORDERS ON OUR WEBSITE AND GET AMAZING DISCOUNTS!!!

Latest completed orders:

Completed Orders
# Title Academic Level Subject Area # of Pages Paper Urgency