Case Brief example

The following Case Brief (also known as a Case Note) is on the case of JJ Savage & Sons Pty Ltd V Blakney (1970) CLR 435:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VicRp/1973/37.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=JJ%20Savage

Citation:
JJ Savage & Sons Pty Ltd V Blakney (1970) 119 CLR 435

The Court:
- High Court of Australia
- Barwick CJ, Menzies, Owen, and Walsh JJ (unanimous decision, single judgement)

Procedural History:
- First instance: Supreme Court of Victoria (P, Blakney - lost)
-  Second instance: Full Court of Supreme Court of Victoria (App Blakney - appeal successful)
- Present matter: High Court (App JJ Savage)

Facts:
- Blakney (Resp) entered into a contract with JJ Savage & Sons (App) for the supply of an engine for a boat.
- JJ Savage & Sons (App) gave Blakney (Resp) advice on three different engines they had for sale and made a recommendation for a preferred option.
- Blakney (Resp) purchased an engine from JJ Savage & Sons (App) on the basis of this recommendaiton.
- Blakney (Resp) claimed a breach of collateral warranty.

• The warranty was "that the said cruiser when fitted with a 4/53 series diesel marine engine..." would have an estimated maximum speed of 15 miles per hour.

Issues: Factual / Legal

- Did the contract contain a collateral warranty that the boat would travel at an estimated maximum speed of 15 miles per hour?

Reasoning:
- The fact that JJ Savage made a statement regarding the maximum speed of the boat was not in and of in itself sufficient to ground a collateral warranty [12].
- To establish a collateral warranty, the statement that has been relied upon must be 'promissory' in nature, and nore merely a representation [10]-[11].
- The words 'estimated speed' indicate an opinion, not a promissory statement [10].
- The High Court said that, on receipt of the advice, Blakney could have requested to make the maximum speed of the boat a term of the contract, or obtain a promise that the boat would attain the stipulated speed prior to ordering the boat [12].
- By Blakney simply relying on the advice of JJ Savage to form his own judgement, Blakney failed to establish that the statement was promissory in nature [12].

Ratio:
- For a collateral warranty to arise:

• There must have been a promissory statement
• That statement must have been relied upon, and
• That statement must have induced the party to enter into the contract.

Obiter:

- 'The Full Court seems to have thought it sufficient in order to establish a collateral warranty that without the statement as to the estimated speed the contract of purchase would never have been made' [11].

Held:
- Decision: the statement made by JJ Savage & Sons was not promissory in nature, therefore it did not give rise to a collateral warranty.
- Order: 'Appeal allowed with costs. Order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria set aside and in lieu thereof order that the appeal to that court be dismissed with costs'

Catherine Greentree - Macquarie Law School, Case Analysis (2015) Case Brief

Statutory Interpretation: the key steps.

When interpreting a statute, the following steps are taken to ensure that an understanding of the meaning of an Act can be gained. The steps are as follows:

Step 1: Jurisdiction - does the Act cover the relevant events?

Step 2: In force - was the Act in force to the relevant time?

Step 3: Relevant provisions - what issues arise?

Step 4: Analysis - Addressing each issue, using relevant tools such as Intrinsic and Extrinsic sources, Latin Maxims and presumptions/rules.

Step 5: Purpose - check to see whether the interpretation you have made meets the 'purpose' text that applies in the relevant jurisdiction.

Step 6: Conclusion - Overall, what do you think is the correct legal outcome? what is the likely outcome? present other possible results.

Statutory Interpretation: The Key notions.

• Statutory Interpretation, is essentially working out what legislation means, and applies the meaning in a specific context: a case. Statutory Interpretation has been used by the courts to help determine the purpose of statutes, and historically there have been 3 approaches that judges would use, which as shown below:

The Literal Rule: interpret according to plain, literal meaning of the words. If there is an ambiguity or an absurdity with this approach, use.

The Golden Rule: still according to the plain meaning, but with a slight modification to avoid the absurdity. If a sensible result is still not reached, use:

The Mischief Rule: is based on the idea that statutes were to be interpreted by determining the purpose of Parliament in passing the legislation, and adopting an interpretation of the words of the statute that is consistent with that purpose.

However, in more recent times, the Modern Approach has been used, which is the amalgamation of the three aforementioned rules, and aimed to look at the purpose or object of the Act as a starting point, as opposed to the Mischief or Purpose rule which required an ambiguity or inconsistency before a court had the right to consider the purpose of the Act.

• Similarly, it is important to consider the relevant Intrinsic and Extrinsic materials, Latin Maxims and Presumptions to help gain meaning from a statute:

• Intrinsic Sources:

• Things ‘internal’ or ‘within’ the Act itself:
• - Long title
• - Short title
• - Preamble
• - Objects clause (sometimes written as ‘objects’ or ‘purpose’ of an Act)
• - Definition sections
• - Headings
• - Schedules
• -  Notes

Extrinsic Sources:

• Things ‘external’ to the Act itself:
• Common examples:

• Explanatory memorandum
• Second reading speeches
• Records of Parliamentary debates
• Law Reform Commission reports
• Committee reports
• International Treaties and Agreements
• Other examples include the dictionary and scholarship
• These are explicitly listed in the Acts Interpretations Act 1901 (Cth) and the Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW)

• Latin Maxims:
• Note: Latin Maxims are secondary tools for interpretation – with the Interpretation Acts overriding. Courts still do refer to the maxims where relevant.

• Expressio unius est exclusio aterius:
•  The express meaning of one thing is the exclusion of another
•  E.g. If a statute that said adults could drive cars, this would be considered to exclude children from driving cars.

• Generalia specialbus non derogant:
• General things do not derogate from special thing/a specific provision in a statute will always override a general one. 
• E.g. If a statute said that no animals are allowed on public transport, and in a separate section (or separate statute) it said that visually impaired individuals may at any time be accompanied by a harnessed guide dog, then you would apply the specific provision on guide dogs over the general prohibition on animals.

• Noscitur a sociis:
•  It is known by associates – we figure out the meaning of a word by those around it (i.e context)

• Ejusdem generis:
• Of the same kind
• If you have specific words followed by a general word (e.g. glass, bottle, jug or any other thing), the interpretation of the general word is limited by the specific things that came before it (e.g. ‘other thing’ cannot be a doughnut or a pigeon).
• Qualification: there must be 2 words before the general phrase to apply

• For Ejusdem generis to apply, there must be the use of lists.

Presumptions:

• Courts make certain presumptions, which apply unless the statute uses clear words to reject them. This means these presumptions are ‘rebuttable’. There are as follows:

- Parliament does not interfere with fundamental rights.

- Statutes do not operate retrospectively.

- Courts presume their previous interpretation of a word or phrase applies if Parliament uses the word or phrase in a statute.

- Legislation does not bind the crown.

- Penal provisions are strictly interpreted in favour of the accused.

- Legislation does not take jurisdiction away from the courts.

- Property rights are not taken away without compensation.

- Legislation does not have extra-territorial effect.

- Parliament does not intend to interfere with equality of religion.

- Parliament intends to legislate in conformity with International law.

- Words are used consistently in statutes.

Welcome!

Welcome to Oh Law'd!

Hi there! I'm Shaneil.

Being a fresh-faced law student, I am extremely passionate about the law and the legal industry in Australia. Studying a Bachelor of Commerce with a Bachelor of Laws, I have the opportunity to document my perspectives of the law, and attempt to keep up to date with issues of the law all around us.

Here, you'll find interesting things about Australian law, new developments in the legal profession, and opinion pieces on the state of the legal system as it is today.... all from the perspective of a law student!

Whether you are a practicing lawyer who wants a fresh perspective on the law, a current law student looking for some helpful information, or an aspiring law student testing to see if they'll enjoy a career in law - you'll find something of intrigue and use here!

At the point of writing, I am in my first semester of Law School. It will be a long journey, but one that I'm sure many of you will be able to relate to, and perhaps help guide you aswell along the way.

I look forward to sharing my passion with you.

Shaneil