Business Law notes

Hierarchy of Courts

Detail the hierarchy of the NSW court system from the lowest to the highest courts including federal
courts and commissions that operates in NSW. Name lowest to highest + Jurisdiction + identity of
presiding officer. Draw it as a table.

Two layers of legislation -> Federal -> customs, immigration and state

Court Presiding Officer Jurisdiction

Local (Inferior, - Magistrates - Original jurisdiction
Magistrate’s) Court - Limited ability to review and deal with
objections to some administrative
decisions of tribunals.
- In the Small Claims Division, claims to
$10,000;
- In the General Division, claims over
$10,000 and up to $100,000
- NCAT consumer claims up to $40,000
Children’s Court - Magistrates -
(same level as local
court)
Coroner’s Court - Magistrates - sudden, violent, suspicious or unnatural
(same level as local deaths (cause of death)
court) - investigate fires and explosions
Intermediate - Judge alone (in - Original civil jurisdiction determined by
(District or County) general for a statutory monetary jurisdictional limit
courts civil) - $100,101- $750 000
- Jury of four or (more if the parties
six (for civil) consent)
- Judge and Jury - All motor vehicle accidents
of 12 (criminal) - Criminal jurisdiction deals with bulk of
indictable offences except for capital
offences such as murder, treason and
sedition.
- Limited appellate jurisdiction, can hear
appeals from inferior courts and some
tribunals
Superior (Supreme) - Judge alone (in - Unlimited original jurisdiction
court general for - > $750,000 (no upper limit)
civil) - appellate jurisdiction
- If jury, usually
four and rarely
six or twelve
(civil)
- Judge and Jury
of 12 (criminal)
Federal Circuit - judges - identical jurisdiction with the Federal
Court of Australia Court in relation to all matters arising
(concurrent with under the Bankruptcy Act 1966
Family Court and - (Cth), Australian Human Rights
Federal Court) Commission Act 1986 (Cth) and
Administrative Decisions (Judicial
Review) Act 1977 (Cth), and appeals
from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal
transferred to it by the Federal Court;
- concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal
Court to review visa-related decisions of
the Migration Review Tribunal, the
Refugee Review Tribunal and the
Administrative Appeals Tribunal;
- consumer matters arising under
Schedule 2 of the ACL and limited
matters under the Competition and
Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), including
misuse of market power (s 46) and
industry codes (s IVB), with the
power to provide injunctive relief and
award damages of up to $750 000;
- civil jurisdiction with respect to claims
under the National Consumer Credit
Protection Act 2009 (Cth);
- jurisdiction to hear and determine civil
copyright matters under the Copyright
Act 1968 (Cth); and
- jurisdiction to hear and determine
matters under the Fair Work Act 2009
(Cth)
Family Court - jurisdiction is concurrent with the
Federal and Magistrate's Court
Federal Court of - Chief Justice - original jurisdiction extends to traditional
Australia and other Commonwealth matters and to over 150
judges statutes
- Usually single - appellant jurisdiction
judge (Full
court is three
Judges)
The High Court of - Chief Justice - final court of appeal within the
Australia and six other Australian legal system-it can hear
justices appeals from
- Usually single state Supreme Courts and the Federal
judge in Court, but only if it first grants special
original leave and agrees to hear the case.
jurisdiction - to exercise a defined original jurisdiction-
- Cases for example. to hear cases involving
concerning indictable offences against the laws of
Constitution the Commonwealth, where the
composed of Commonwealth itself is suing or being
five judges (Full sued, or where there is a dispute
High Court) between two or more states. or matters
- Usually three involving residents of two or more
justices for states;
appeals - original jurisdiction in cases that affect
- FBHCA (Full foreign affairs, constitutional issues and
Bench of High matters concerning the legislative power
Court of of federal Parliament
Australia) 7 can hear and determine appeals from:
judges - a justice or justices exercising the
original jurisdiction of the court;
- any other federal court, or court
exercising federal jurisdiction; and
- any state Supreme Court.
Tucker vs Allied Press (2-3 pages)

- Employee tucker made complaint of workplace bullying against her manager

- Shortly withdrew, “did not want anything done” “Just wanted her employer to know about
the situation”
- 2015, second complaint against same manager -> HR manager did not take action cos
thought they would withdraw.
- 2016, someone else (Mr Jones -> co-worker) reported that Tucker was being bullied -> HR
did not take action as Mrs Tucker did not make the claim herself, feeling they could not do
as they did not directly make claim)
- Late 2016 work compensation claim as a result of the bullying and the lack of action from
the employer (anxiety, depression and other physical conditions)
- Legal position in possible action of negligence against employer.

Duty of Care

As the employer of Ms. Tucker, Allied Press owes a duty of care to Ms. Tucker to provide a safe
environment. Work Health and Safety says that an employer conducting a business must provide a
safe working environment to prevent injury and illness to their employees. As the owner of the
workplace building, Allied press owes a duty of care to Ms. Tucker Additionally, she is lawfully
contracted to be on the premises.

Breach

Allied press has breached their duty of care to Ms. Tucker by failing to intervene and act to prevent
the workplace bullying. Although Ms. Tucker withdrew her complaint shorty after she filled it and
said, “did not want anything done” “Just wanted her employer to know about the situation”, a
reasonable person in the HR manager’s position still would’ve investigated the case further and
taken action as it was reasonably foreseeable that the bullying would not be stopped without
intervention. Additionally, Ms. Tucker had filed a second report in 2015 against the same manager,
but was ignored because the HR manager thought she would withdraw her complaint again. This is a
grievous breach of Allied Press’ duty of care.

Damages

As a result of Allied Press’ negligence, Ms. Tucker suffered anxiety and depression. For this, Ms
Tucker seeks a compensation of $50,000 for damages directly caused by her employees’ negligence.

Causation

The damages were caused by Allied Press neglecting to act on the bullying in their workplace, which
breached their duty of care to Ms. Tucker. From the facts, it is clear that Ms. Tuckers anxiety and
depression is a direct result of the workplace bullying by her manager and there are no other
apparent reasons for her condition.

Foreseeability

The damages to Ms. Tucker were reasonably foreseeable as she had reported the bullying to the HR
manager twice, and a fellow employee had also reported the workplace bullying once. A reasonable
person in the place of the HR manager would have taken action given the series of complaints,
however, Allied press choose to not take action and this lead to the breach of their duty of care to
provide a safe environment for Ms Tucker. This effect of this breach is reasonably foreseeable as no
action was taken so Ms. Tucker’s condition worsened.

Link fair work act says about workplace bullying

Link WHS act about duty of care

Link both of those back to the scenario

Cases

T –v- AP

Neg = B/H

Lack of action

Breach of DOC = use another case, negligence , bullying harassment case- precedent (real case of
2007, 2014) AWPTI.com.au