Reference no: EM132594814

QUESTION ONE - CASE STUDY

In July 2014, Ringwood Hospital (RH) received a large Government grant to upgrade their maternity section. RH contacted MAD Pty Ltd, a professional building inspection company to inspect the premises and provide a detailed report about the condition of the maternity ward which they would directly rely upon to appoint a contractor to complete the upgrade of the maternity ward. Ed (CEO of RH) spoke with MAD Building Inspector Dimi and hired MAD Pty Ltd to conduct an inspection of the maternity ward prior to renovations to determine if the building contained any dangerous materials.

Ed stated in the conversation with Dimi at the time of the inspection that the identification of dangerous or hazardous material was a fundamental part of their planning process and it was critical to the project as any dangerous material would increase the price of the renovations. Therefore, the decision to proceed with the renovation project depended on the outcome of the inspection report.

Building Inspector, Dimi, attended the site in late July 2014. Ed was in attendance at the inspection. Ed was surprised at how casual Dimi was, asking very few questions, looking around the hospital very quickly and was only on site for less than 15 minutes. Ed didn't want to cause problems with the projects progress so he didn't report this back to MAD or raise this as a concern. MAD forwarded the report to RH in August 2014 stating the site was free of any dangerous materials and there were no special conditions that must be adhered to during the demolition process. RH paid MAD for conducting the inspection and for the report.

Based on the report they received from MAD, RH decided to proceed with the renovation and Ed arranged for surveys to be conducted, plans to be drawn up and the development

application to be lodged with the local council. The plans were approved and the renovations commenced in March 2015.

LANG Constructions Pty Ltd (Lang) was contracted by RH to complete the renovations by 31 December 2015 and work commenced in late March 2015. Unfortunately, during the demolition process, asbestos (a dangerous material, known to cause lung disease) was found in the ceiling of the old Maternity Ward and it had to be removed at great expense. Lang supplied all their workers with protective clothing (PPE) and told them they must wear the clothing at all times whilst the building work was completed. Lang also incurred large additional demolition / compliance expenses as well as being unable to complete the building by 31 December 2015.

All of Lang's workers except for Bill (the foreman) always complied with the instruction to wear PPE. Bill, while working on the hospital's asbestos ceiling during renovations, often took the protective clothing off. Two years after construction of the new maternity ward was completed, Bill was diagnosed with a lung disease contracted through exposure to asbestos dust on the building site.

During the renovations, the builders would frequently leave the tap running into the gutter whilst cleaning up in the afternoon (typically for an hour or more). Jo, a neighbour to the site, had a freshwater pond on her property with a rare species of native frog living there. The frogs were affected by the chemicals and stopped breeding and some died.

Required:

i) Outline whether or not MAD owed a duty of care to RH for their report and what would they need to prove in Court to be successful? With reference in your answer to the standard of care, has this standard been satisfied? Include a discussion of the main statute laws and relevant cases in your answer.

ii) How do you think the Court would treat the non compliance of Lang Builders with the term of their contract with RH to complete the renovation by 31 December 2015?

iii) Identify any possible defences Lang could raise in relation to the injury suffered by Bill and advise as to their likelihood of success.

iv) With reference to the principles of the law of negligence, what action could Jo take and is she likely to succeed?

You must refer to case law in your answer.

Your answer to Question 1 should focus on Torts and Contract Law. The maximum word count for Question 1 (excluding references) is 1000 words.

QUESTION TWO - ESSAY

Outline and describe the various ways in which the Australian Consumer Law protects consumers against unsafe products in Australia; and do you consider these protections are adequate. Give reasons to support your argument.

In your answer you must refer to specific sections of the Australian Consumer Law and use case examples to support your argument.

The maximum word count for Question 2 (excluding references) is 1000 words.