Overarching obligations - Mini-scenario 2

Facts

The defendant, Grassi, entered land occupied by the plaintiff, Windridge Farm Pty Ltd, without consent to take photographs with the intention of alleging the plaintiff’s piggery business failed to comply with appropriate standards of care for animals. Windridge commenced proceedings against Grassi seeking an order for delivery of the photographs on the basis that Grassi held copyright in the photographs on constructive trust for Windridge.

At a very late stage in the proceedings, Grassi seeks leave to file an amended defence to argue the defence of ‘unclean hands’ in respect of alleged poor welfare of animals kept by Windridge on its property. Grassi claims the plaintiff’s ‘clean hands’ were always in issue, as the relief sought is equitable. For this defence to be arguable, a nexus will need to be established between the right claimed by the plaintiff as the basis for equitable relief (ownership of the copyright) on the one hand, and the alleged conduct of the plaintiff in running the piggery on the other. No such nexus exists, and as such, the case is not arguable.

1:What section enables you to take into account a breach of any overarching obligation in determining whether to allow the amended defence?
A)

Section 27

Incorrect

 

B)

Section 28

Correct

  

C)

Section 29

Incorrect

 

D)

Section 30

Incorrect

 

2:Check the three sections that Grassi may have fallen short of:
A)

Sections 17, 20 and 24

Incorrect

 

B)

Sections 18, 23 and 25

Correct

 

C)

Sections 17, 19 and 26

Incorrect

 

D)

Sections 20, 22 and 24

Incorrect

 

Facts

According to the plaintiff, the true explanation for the late introduction of this pleading lies in the very thinly veiled strategy of Animal Liberation (who are funding the litigation and have strong links with Grassi) to use the proceedings as a platform for the promotion of its campaign against practices in the pig-farming industry. As the late application has no prospect of success, you accept this argument.

3:What subsection appears to be most appropriate to turn to in these circumstances?
A)

Section 29(1)(a)

Correct

 

B)

Section 29(1)(b)

Incorrect

 

C)

Section 29(1)(c)

Incorrect

 

D)

Section 29(1)(d)

Incorrect

 

4:Grassi has no money. Can an order for costs be made against Animal Liberation?
A)

No, because Animal Liberation are not a party to the proceedings

Incorrect

 

B)

Yes, because Animal Liberation are funding the litigation

Incorrect

 

C)

Yes, because Animal Liberation are funding the litigation and it has contravened at least one overarching obligation

Correct

 

D)

Yes, because Animal Liberation has not met its paramount duty to the court to further the administration of justice

Incorrect

   

Comments

Post new comment

  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <ul> <ol> <li>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically. (Better URL filter.)
CAPTCHA
Please enter the words you see in the box, in order and separated by a space. Doing so helps prevent automated programs from abusing this service.

Main Navigation

JOIN Login

The Judicial Officers Information Network (JOIN) is an online resource for judicial officers and their support staff. JOIN ensures judicial officers have access to legislation, judgments, publications including benchbooks and manuals, sentencing statistics and legal reference material.

JOIN is for work use only. All users must agree to the terms and conditions before using it. The Judicial College supplies and manages the username and password.