Nguyen V Hiotis Case

Part A
Nguyen v Hiotis and City of Charles Sturt [2000] SASC 88 (11 May 2000)

1. The plaintiff, Nguyen, issued proceedings claiming damages for a personal injury at a fashion parade owned and occupied by the second defendant, City of Charles Sturt. Statement of claim asserted that a duty of care was owed by the second defendant to the plaintiff on the basis that the second defendant as owner and occupier of the hall, hired the hall to the organiser who failed to provide satisfactory security. Second defendant applied for an order to strike out the State of claim made by the plaintiff, on the foundation that failed to relate any cause of action against the second defendant. The issue the court has to decide is whether the claim pleaded by the plaintiff against the second defendant has any plausible basis or arguable cause of action in negligence, therefore whether it is arguable that a duty of care was owed to the plaintiff by the second defendant to ensure his safety and security at this fashion parade hired by the first defendant, Hiotis.

2. Section 5(1) of the Occupier’s Liability Act 1985 (WA) is different to s17C(1) of the Wrongs Act 1936 (SA) in that the Occupier’s Liability Act asserts the need for controls to be exercised over the behaviour of persons attending the premises.

“The care which an occupier of premises is required by reason of the occupation or control of the premises to show towards a person entering on the premises in respect of dangers which are due to the state of the premises or to anything done or omitted to be done on the premises and for which the occupier is by law responsible.” (s5(1) of the Occupier’s Liability Act 1985 (WA))

Section 17C(1) of the Wrongs Act only invokes the principles of the l...

... middle of paper ...

...onse to this issue is not doing anything further to reduce the bacteria and chance of infection to the consumers, the court will decide that your response is unreasonable.

Orange-ic is breaching its duty of care if no further action is taken in order to mitigate or prevent this bacteria in orange juice and is liable for a suit under section 5 of the Civil Liability Act 2002. I recommend that Orange-ic consider pasteurizing their oranges to mitigate the risk that a consumer could be exposed to bacteria such as E.Coli or Salmonella. This will also enable you to reapply for your export license in which will increase your distribution therefore creating a greater income for your company.

I hope you take on board the legal advice I have given you in this report, thus helping you decide on the direction Orange-ic will take in the future of producing Orange-ic juice.