Jump to content

Australian Survivor!! Now - Tribal!! Final!! Congratulations to our Sole Survivor - Outpost31!!

Recommended Posts

Greg Coal was sued by a resident who lived proximate to one of their mines. As part of the discovery process where parties exchange documents, the solicitor for Greg Coal accidentally disclosed a draft letter summarizing the legal advice and reasons for their legal conclusion to the solicitors of the angry resident. Greg Coal said that that the communications were a subject of privilege, but solicitors for the resident argued it was waived because they had disclosed it to them. Can GC still rely on privilege to protect themselves?

Both tribes said they can.

No – because they had voluntarily disclosed the substance of legal advice which waives privilege to that document automatically. The case is Fenwick v Wambo Coal (No 2)



Greg’s sued by a rugby league club for breach of contract when he flees under the cover of darkness to France to join a rugby union club. The club has to serve their statement of claim on to Greg, but he is evading them. They hire a Frenchman to serve the documents – he manages to find Greg training at a ground, and throws the documents at him. Greg’s trainer takes them and says “c’est pour toi” – “it’s for you”. Could they say they served Greg?

Both tribes said they can - 

Yes – because of the deliberate evasions of the service and extent of the club's attempts to serve the player too the court made a curative order to consider service to have been completed. The case is Bulldogs RLFC v Williams


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg, out with a friend at a national park and very very inebriated, is sitting on a cliff edge which was off in the bush and away from the path. He falls off and is injured, and because of this he sues the council for negligence in not fencing the cliff off. Does he get the compensation?

Both tribes said that there's no compensation.

No – it was said that if the council had to fence off this cliff – which was off the path and not accessible to the public unless they trespassed – then all of the councils across the country would have to fence every cliff in the country to prevent negligence suits. The case here is Romeo v Conservation Commission

this is actually a pretty interesting reason that they gave; essentially that the policy consideration is if they granted compensation here every local council and parks authority would have to fence literally every inch of cliff across the entire country, which would have such a damaging effect on ecosystems and on natural beauty of these parks to erect giant steel fences everywhere it would be a disaster



The government in their response to a financial crisis says they will give every working adult $900, to give a kickstart to the economy. Greg, who is an academic in tax law, and presumably, like, a libertarian, is repulsed by the idea of this handout and says it is unconstitutional for the federal government to commandeer the economy in such a way. The government says it is within the scope of their nationhood power – the ability to undertake measures of national endeavor peculiarly adapted to the government of a nation. Do they get to do their stimulus program?

Yes – it is said that in times of financial crisis the government can take such action as it is peculiarly adapted to the government of a nation and clearly in the national interest here. The case is Pape v Commissioner for Taxation


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SwAg said:

Oh, did they only have to guess the outcome, not the actual law?

yeah i did it as sort of a yes/no thing so as to promote accessibility and give everyone the chance to get involved, otherwise it would just be rags 15 everyone else 0

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Shady Slim said:

yeah i did it as sort of a yes/no thing so as to promote accessibility and give everyone the chance to get involved, otherwise it would just be rags 15 everyone else 0

oh so rags won then

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg, charged with a serious sexual offense, pleads guilty to the offense. He applies to get let out on bail on account of various reasons including a kidney appointment he had scheduled for the near future, which was set for before the date of his sentencing. Does he get it?

2TIT said there was bail

D2S said there was not

No – entering of a guilty plea precludes bail as you can not show cause detention is unjustified if you've been found guilty of a serious offense. The case is R v Tikomaimaleya

D2S leads it by 10-8

never forget that 2TIT gave bail to the pedophile

Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg, accessory to the stealing of a car by his cousin, is joyriding around with his cousin and asks to be let out of the car. The cousin does not stop and the joyriding continues, and there is an accident and they are both hurt. Generally, there is no duty of care when parties engage with joint illegal enterprise; Greg argues this is precluded here as he requested the other cousin let him out of the car, and he has a claim against his cousin. Does he?

2TIT said that there was a claim

D2S said there as not

Yes – as said, the bar on claims during joint illegal activities was nixed upon Greg asking he is let out of the car – but he’s still not immune to any criminal prosecution for the theft itself of the car. The case is Miller v Miller.

greg met the withdrawal requirements as short of flinging himself out of the car he couldn't really do much else

D2S leads it by 10-9

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...