The origins of the CMCH Act is suggested to be an outcome of the 1994 discussion paper of the Law Commission which assessed the law of ‘involuntary manslaughter’. One of the basic elements of the Act is the ‘relevant duty of care’ with regards to the organisation and its ‘employees’ coupled with other ‘entities’. Moreover, the formation of the presence of relevant duty of care requires the application of the doctrines and precedence from the previously decided cases which established the law of negligence. The test laid down in Caparo serves as an important factor in determining negligence, and thereby constituting relevant duty of care. Additionally, the three stage test laid down in Caparo includes ‘foreseeability of damage’, a ‘relationship …show more content…
Secondly, the complexities regarding the CMCH Act will be considered coupled with a brief discussion on the HSWA. The third chapter will discuss about the various problems which the CMCH Act might be suffering from. Moreover, the concept of a corporation as a ‘separate legal personality’ with regards to its culpability will be discussed. The various issues pertaining to the corporations and its management considering gross negligence will be stated during the course of this dissertation. The fourth chapter will include one of the main aims and objectives of this dissertation i.e. to provide clarity to terms like ‘relevant duty of care’ and ‘senior management’. Additionally, it must be stated that the discussion relating to senior management and relevant duty of care will be done regardless of the categories of the chapters as these two elements are the core of the CMCH Act. The intricacies regarding the approach taken by the jury and the court to establish ‘gross breach’ and the relevant duty of care will also be examined in the fourth chapter. The fifth chapter will examine several characteristics of a corporation which might be influencing the way CMCH Act operates. Furthermore, the sixth chapter will suggest the disputes surrounding the CMCH Act since the time it was introduced and its current scenario. Conversely, the seventh chapter will propose the positive aspects of the CMCH Act and its requirement with regards to the modern commercial world. There will also be an attempt to compare the scenarios prior and after the CMCH Act in a concise manner throughout the dissertation. In conclusion, it will be proposed that the CMCH Act has been ineffective in fulfilling its objectives, however the intention behind the creation of the Act cannot be questioned. It shall also be endeavoured to make the CMCH Act more effective and credible in
The appeal was heard in The NSW Supreme Court, Court of Appeal. The appellant appealed the issue of “blameless accidents” therefore providing new evidence, with the view that the preceding judge made an error recognising the content and scope of duty of care. He also noted the breach of duty of care and causation .
Corporate crime (state crimes) are invisible, they are either not persecuted or not seen as crime, this is because the state have the power to criminalize or decriminalize acts . The Hillsborough disaster is one of the most serious crimes in the UK which was not seen as a crime but rather labelled as an accidental death. This essay will present the facts and highlight the various legal issues with regards to the Hillsborough disaster that took place on 15 April 1989. It will first of all state the facts of the event, engaging the international human rights provision, domestic legislation and will further analyse the access to justice doctrine as regards to the Hillsborough case.
Axiak v Ingram (2012) 82 NSWLR 36 (Axiak) was extremely pertinent, standing as the “only decision of this court dealing with the construction of the blameless accident provisions of the MACA”. Critically, the case established that ‘non-tortious negligence’ is excluded from the MACA’s definition of “fault” in s3. Such provisions artificially place fault upon the driver in order to secure CTP claims for victims.
The size of the company has a fluctuating impact on the ramifications of the law administering the inconvenience of risk on companies. The thought of forcing the liability is unique in relation to the worry of distinguishing the tenet, which will be connected to the case. In specific cases, it might be an improper law to carry out cases, which lacks the foundation of criminal liability of the company involved within the case. Big companies have a convoluted chain of command, which has multilevel frameworks inside the
In the Worcester Cold Storage fire the defendants were initially charged with six counts each of involuntary manslaughter. However the Superior Court dismissed the incitements because the court declared that the defendants did not have a duty to act (report the fire) and that their actions did not satisfy the standard of wanton and reckless conduct required for a manslaughter charge. However, in the appeal the commonwealth presented evidence that the defendants did have a duty to act and their behavior at the time of and after the fire shows a pattern of wanton and reckless behavior.
The case Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd[1] confirms the long held doctrine that employers are vicariously liable for the negligence of their employees during the course of their employment. In comparison to cases such as Humberstone v Northern Timber Mills[2] and Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd[3], which appear to contribute to the development of the application of common law to evolving social conditions, the Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd case may be considered as taking a step back in affirming the traditional notion of ‘control’ when determining the nature of employment relationships. The following will critically analyse the ratio and the legal and commercial implications prevalent in this case.
Negligence, as defined in Pearson’s Business Law in Canada, is an unintentional careless act or omission that causes injury to another. Negligence consists of four parts, of which the plaintiff has to prove to be able to have a successful lawsuit and potentially obtain compensation. First there is a duty of care: Who is one responsible for? Secondly there is breach of standard of care: What did the defendant do that was careless? Thirdly there is causation: Did the alleged careless act actually cause the harm? Fourthly there is damage: Did the plaintiff suffer a compensable type of harm as a result of the alleged negligent act? Therefore, the cause of action for Helen Happy’s lawsuit will be negligence, and she will be suing the warden of the Peace River Correctional Centre, attributable to vicarious liability. As well as, there will be a partial defense (shared blame) between the warden and the two employees, Ike Inkster and Melvin Melrose; whom where driving the standard Correction’s van.
This particular statute allows for corporations and such to obtain several, but not all, constitutional rights as any person or persons. In particularly own property, sue and be sued under criminal and civil law, enter contests. Moreover, because corporations and such are considerate as “person”, business has the legal rights for its debts and damages. On the contrary, persons who are employed by a particular association are liable for their own misconduct and law-breaking while acting on behalf of a corporation. In addition, corporation has rights for its own actions, has rights such as: limited free speech and to advertise their product ("The Rights of Corporations," 2009). Likewise, businesses have the responsibility to elect a CEO, provide continuity; increase profits, social responsibilities, and manages recourses effectively (“Functions & Responsibilities of a Corporation").
The Act allows negligence as the sole ground unlike common law which required the claimant to establish ‘fraud’ even if negligence existed. It is believed that the ‘d...
Section 7 of the CECO stipulates that the liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence could not be excluded or restricted. For ‘other loss or damage’, the liability can be excluded only if the exclusion clause satisfies the requirement of reasonableness. And this section should remain unchanged.
Also, the tort victim is usually sufficiently compensated through insurance rather than if they claimed against the employee as the master has the ‘deepest pocket’[2]. However, recent developments in the law on vicarious liability not only makes the employer liable for acts that are ‘directly’ connected with what they are employed to do, but it is now established that an employer may be liable for the unauthorised acts of an employee, where those acts are ‘closely connected’ with the nature of the wrongdoer’s employment. The principle of vicarious liability can also burden the operation of a business by placing a disproportionate amount of responsibility on an employer. More money needs to be spent on training, employee’s characteristics need to be assessed and higher costs will be passed on to the consumer.
The Principle of Separate Corporate Personality The principle of separate corporate personality has been firmly established in the common law since the decision in the case of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd[1], whereby a corporation has a separate legal personality, rights and obligations totally distinct from those of its shareholders. Legislation and courts nevertheless sometimes "pierce the corporate veil" so as to hold the shareholders personally liable for the liabilities of the corporation. Courts may also "lift the corporate veil", in the conflict of laws in order to determine who actually controls the corporation, and thus to ascertain the corporation's true contacts, and closest and most real connection. Throughout the course of this assignment I will begin by explaining the concept of legal personality and describe the veil of incorporation. I will give examples of when the veil of incorporation can be lifted by the courts and statuary provisions such as s.24 CA 1985 and incorporate the varying views of judges as to when the veil can be lifted.
There is a strict distinction between acts and omissions in tort of negligence. “A person is often not bound to take positive action unless they have agreed to do so, and have been paid for doing so.” (Cane.2009; 73) The rule is a settled one and allows some exceptions only in extreme circumstances. The core idea can be summarized in “why pick on me” argument. This attitude was spectacularly demonstrated in a notoriously known psychological experiment “The Bystander effect” (Latané & Darley. 1968; 377-383). Through practical scenarios, psychologists have found that bystanders are more reluctant to intervene in emergency situations as the size of the group increases. Such acts of omission are hardly justifiable in moral sense, but find some legal support. “A man is entitled to be as negligent as he pleases towards the whole world if he owes no duty to them.” (L Esher Lievre v Gould [1893] 1 Q.B. 497) Definitely, when there is no sufficient proximity between the parties, a legal duty to take care cannot be lawfully exonerated and imposed, as illustrated in Palmer v Tees Health Authority [1999] All ER (D) 722). If it could, individuals would have been in the permanent state of over- responsibility for others, neglecting their own needs. Policy considerations in omission cases are not inspired by the parable of Good Samaritan ideas. Judges do favour individualism as it “permits the avoidance of vulnerability and requires self-sufficiency. “ (Hoffmaster.2006; 36)
According to Corporation Act 2001 s124(1), it illustrates that ‘’A company has the legal capacity and powers of an individual both in and outside the jurisdiction” . As it were, company as a legal individual must be freely with all its capital contribution shall embrace liability for its legal actions and obligations of the company’s shareholders is limited to its investment to the company. This ‘separate legal entity’ principle was established in the case of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [1987] as company was held to have conducted the business as a legal person and separate from its members. It demonstrated that the debt of company is belonged to the company but not to the shareholders. Shareholders have only right to participate in managing but not in sharing the company property. Besides ,the Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd [1925] demonstrates that the distinction between the shareholders and company assets. It means that even Mr Macaura owned almost all the shares in the company, he had no insurable interest in the company’s asset. The other recent case is the Lee v Lee’s Air Farming Ltd [1961] which illustrates that the distinct legal entities between employee ad director allows Mr.Lee function in dual capacities. It resulted that the corporation can contract with the controlling member of the corporation.
The concept of limited liability promotes recklessness and irresponsible risk taking. The argument for the return of unlimited liability is also an argument for separate legal personality to be taken less seriously. It is believed that, should it happen, would “eradicate the problem of corporate irresponsibility and unaccountability by identifying corporations more closely with their shareholders, encouraging a shift towards the older concept of ‘the company’ as an aggregation of