Section 1

Preview this deck

How does common law work

Front

Star 0%
Star 0%
Star 0%
Star 0%
Star 0%

0.0

0 reviews

5
0
4
0
3
0
2
0
1
0

Active users

0

All-time users

0

Favorites

0

Last updated

6 years ago

Date created

Mar 1, 2020

Cards (58)

Section 1

(50 cards)

How does common law work

Front

applies when no statute law applies or when no existing common law applies. Precedents create new common law.

Back

statute law

Front

legislation that has been passed through Parliament

Back

neighbour

Front

anyone who can be affected by your acts or omissions, even if there's no direct relationship

Back

Types of Law in Australia

Front

Statute , common law

Back

overcoming precedent by:

Front

overruling, reversing, distinguishing, disapproving

Back

characteristics of effective laws

Front

for laws to be effective, they must be accepted by the community. - known to public - easy to understand and necessary - reflect values of community - consistent in content and application - stable and capable of being enforced

Back

persuasive precedent

Front

those which are not binding, but to which respect is paid. - from lower court in same hierarchy, or other court hierarchies - eg Donoghue vs Stevenson's case influenced Aus. Grant vs AKM case

Back

negligence

Front

the failure of duty of care either through act or omission

Back

damage

Front

compensation for damage caused to plaintiff

Back

warden's court

Front

deals with proceedings relating to disputes over mining tenements in WA

Back

doctrine of precedent

Front

legal principle created by courts which allow judges to use past decisions to consider judgments for similar circumstances

Back

duty of care

Front

a moral or legal obligation to ensure the safety or well-being of others.

Back

WA Court Hierarchy

Front

High - Supreme - District - Magistrates - Family - Children's - Drug - Coroner's

Back

Why do we need a court hierarchy

Front

- EFFICIENCY: lower courts deal with less complicated matters - to provide right of APPEAL: higher courts review decisions of lower courts - PRECEDENTS: decisions of higher courts be used to bind/guide lower courts = consistency - allows for SPECIALISATION - giving administrative convenience

Back

difference between common and statute law

Front

common law are precedents set by previous cases and can be binding or persuasive. Statute law are laws created by parliament through legislation.

Back

Important cases that inspired Aus negligence laws

Front

Donoghue V Stevensons - decomposed snail Grant V Australian Knitting Mills - demerits Cole V South Tweed Heads Rugby Club - drunk, car hit Strong V Woolworths - fell on chip

Back

political values

Front

based on concept of democracy - in Australia - laws protecting us in work environment - laws protecting consumers from dangerous products

Back

social values

Front

our public lives and the way we conduct ourselves with others - respect for life - freedom of speech - anti-discrimination laws

Back

Allows for specialisation

Front

- courts develop expertise in jurisdiction - lower courts familiar with minor cases - higher courts expert in hearing complex cases

Back

defendant

Front

an individual, company, or institution sued or accused in a court of law.

Back

coroners court

Front

investigates reasons behind person's death

Back

moral values

Front

based on what society considers to be right - respect the freedom and dignity of the individual - freedom of religion

Back

tort of negligence

Front

a legal wrong where negligence is a failure of duty of care either through act or omission. It is a civil procedure

Back

tort

Front

a legal wrong

Back

common law

Front

law that is based on previous judgement of the courts and is also called Judge made law or Case law

Back

4 types of torts

Front

- negligence - defamation - nuisance - trespass

Back

binding precedent

Front

One which the court must follow. - decisions of higher courts in same hierarchy - not bound by decisions of court of equivalent standing

Back

overcome precedent by disapproving:

Front

expressing an unfavourable opinion of legal principle

Back

civil procedures

Front

cases between individual

Back

Problems with a court hierarchy

Front

- confusing as to which court the case should be heard - too many appeals - everyone should have access to best judges

Back

good neighbour principle

Front

precedent set by the DvS - established the tort of negligence

Back

judges interpret legislation

Front

Courts apply general laws to specific cases by interpreting the meaning of legislation in light of specific situations in cases

Back

provides system of appeals

Front

- if dissatisfied with decisions made in lower court, can be appealed in higher court - provides fairness, allows for mistakes to be corrected

Back

influences on the law

Front

should reflect community values - moral values - social values - political values - economic values

Back

ratio decidendi

Front

reason for the decision

Back

3 things need to be established to prove negligence

Front

1. Duty of care was owed by the defendant to the plaintiff 2. Duty of care was breached 3. Harm resulted because of the breach

Back

precedents

Front

* exclusively set by superior courts * all lower courts are bound by the decision of higher courts in same hierarchy * decisions by courts on the same level are not binding * judges decisions based on ratio decidendi (reasons) and obiter dictum (argument) of previous court decisions

Back

stare decisis

Front

to stand by what has been decided

Back

major role of law

Front

- identify rights and responsibilities of citizens - provides boundaries defining what's considered acceptable conduct - resolves disputes, maintain order and punish offenders - recognise moral, social, economic, cultural and political values - helps facilitate change

Back

administrative convenience

Front

- court hierarchy allows for distribution of cases according to seriousness - more serious and complex cases heard in higher courts - minor cases heard quickly and cheaply in lower courts

Back

obiter dictum

Front

statements made by judges said in passing that are more observations/arguments about law

Back

how is common law made

Front

- courts always look if they can apply existing law. - if not apply statute law - use this law as a precedent - use doctrine of precedents to make common law

Back

overcome precedent by distinguishing:

Front

involves looking at the facts of the case and finding material difference between them

Back

family violence court

Front

provide intervention to offenders with charges relating to domestic violence

Back

plaintiff

Front

a person who brings a case against another in a court of law.

Back

process of statute law

Front

pass bill in both houses. Law made by parliament called legislation, a statute or an Act.

Back

functions of the law

Front

1. maintain social cohesion and allow ppl to live together in harmony 2. Maintain order and provide punishment against those who break the law 3. allow change within society

Back

overcome precedent by overruling:

Front

when decision is binding on a lower court that decision must be followed

Back

overcome precedent by reversing:

Front

involves same case, firstly heard in lower court and the heard on appeal in higher court

Back

cultural values

Front

relate to people's way of life - freedom to practice cultural beliefs

Back

Section 2

(8 cards)

supreme court

Front

general division: criminal division and civil division criminal: criminal matters which carry life in prison as max penalty civil: hears probate matters and civil claims more than 750 grand appeals division: hears appeals from single judge decisions of supreme court, criminal matters from magistrate's court and civil appeals from district court

Back

drug court

Front

assist people whose offending behaviour is a result of entrenched drug use

Back

High court- federal court aus

Front

Hears matters relating to trade practices, mergers and misuse of market power

Back

children's court

Front

hears criminal matters for children aged between 10 and 17

Back

district court

Front

criminal division: jurisdiction to hear indictable matters punishable by max 20 years jail civil division: hears civil matters for claims under 750 grand

Back

magistrates court

Front

minor cases heard criminal division: maximum 3 years jail civil division: civil claims under 75 grand

Back

High court - family court of wa

Front

although a state court, vested with both state and federal jurisdiction to hear matters relating to family law

Back

high court

Front

Original jurisdiction: hears matters regarding constitution and disputes between states Appellate jurisdiction: hears appeals from original jurisdiction of high court, the federal courts and state supreme courts Federal court of AUS and Family court of WA:

Back