You are an employee in the operations department of a mining company, Fantastic Mining Pty Ltd. The
company has entered into a contract with a staffing solutions provider, Worker Solutions Pty Ltd, to provide
staff on an ongoing basis, to drive the mining trucks that are operated by Fantastic Mining Pty Ltd. The
agreement between Fantastic Mining Pty Ltd and Worker Solutions Pty Ltd is that the staffing company would
provide the workers and pay their wages whilst determining their work system and rosters, while the mining
company would be responsible for maintaining the trucks to ensure that they are in good working order and
are safe to drive when needed.
On the morning of 7 December last year, Simon was driving one of the trucks, having been instructed by
Worker Solutions to do so. On his way to the mines Daniel requested to hitch a ride in the truck, so that he
could get to and repair one of the trucks that had stalled at the entrance of the main mine. Daniel was a local
mechanic who had been requested by the mining company to repair the truck and he intended to drive it
back to the base. As he boarded the truck that Simon was driving, he failed to see the sign on the door of the
truck that stated, “No unauthorized passengers are permitted at any time”. As the ride to the mines was a
short one, Simon did not think twice about giving Daniel a ride. The trip to the mines was a rather bumpy one
and as Simon was navigating the final bend towards the mines at a considerably high speed, he lost control
of the truck, which toppled over and eventually landed on its side. In the process the passenger door of the
truck, which was faulty, flung open and Daniel was thrown out of the truck onto the road where he landed
heavily and broke his right arm. Daniel was hospitalised for a few days and lost the use of his arm for two
months.
It is now February in the following year and your Operations Manager, Stan Lee, has passed on to you a letter
from Daniel’s solicitors demanding that Fantastic Mining accept liability for the injury suffered by Daniel. Stan
believes that it is Worker Solutions that should be held responsible and would like you to write a
memorandum of advice on whether there are grounds to hold Worker Solutions Pty Ltd liable, so that he can
present it to the management committee of the board of directors of Fantastic Mining Pty Ltd.
Required
With reference to relevant legal principles, use the IRAC legal problem-solving approach to draft a suitable
Memorandum of Advice that addresses the nature of the claim that Daniel may make against Fantastic
Mining Pty Ltd and whether in fact Daniel and/or Worker Solutions Pty Ltd can be held liable in any way.
ASSESSMENT TASK
Subject Code and Name LAW301 Business and Corporations Law
Assessment Assessment 1-Case Study Response and in-class Presentation
Task
Individual/Group Individual
Length 1500 words +/- 10%- and 5-Minute Presentation
Learning Outcomes This assessment addresses the following subject learning
outcomes:
a) Identify the key features of the Australian legal system
and demonstrate an understanding of the law that
governs the business environment in relation to agency,
property, contract, torts, business structures and
consumers.
c) Interpret legal problems which arise out of the formation
and use of business structures, research relevant legal
sources, propose suitable outcomes and identify possible
challenges to any proposed outcomes.
d) Apply knowledge based analytical and deductive
reasoning skills to develop insights into various business
situations and find appropriate legal solutions.
Due Date By 11:55pm AEST/AEDT Sunday of Week 5 (Module 3.1)
Weighting 30%
Total Marks 100 marks
Page 2 of 5
Instructions:
You have been assigned below, a fact scenario/case study which you will be required to analyse
utilising the IRAC approach. You will be expected to:
✓ Identify the legal issue(s) arising from the given scenario or case study
✓ Identify the appropriate legal rules that require discussion in the case study
✓ Apply the law to the facts of the case study
✓ Reach a reasoned conclusion/ give practical advice to your client.
Your analysis should refer to appropriate cases and statutes, where applicable and be referenced
using the APA Referencing style. Please see more information on referencing here
https://library.torrens.edu.au/academicskills/apa/tool
You will be required to consider whether the Law of Torts, Law of Contract or the Australian
Consumer is relevant to the given scenario and to elect which of the three areas to focus on in
your response.
The task will assume your knowledge of the content covered in module 1.1 to 3.1 and particularly
that which may be relevant to the scenario given. Your response will be given in the form of a
memorandum of advice, to be addressed to the instructing person, with your concise and
informed opinion on the best course of action. It is expected that you will read through and be
well familiar with the content in the covered modules and that you will support your responses
with appropriate case law and/or legislation that is relevant to the Australian context.
The completed task will comprise a memorandum of advice that should not exceed 1500 (+/-10%)
words.
Presentation
You will also be required make a presentation of not more than five minutes, where you will present your
analyses in summary form, so that the completed presentation will have a summary of the arguments
made in your memorandum of advice whilst ensuring that your structure aligns with the instructions
above.
Submission Instructions
Please submit this task via the Assessment 1 link in the main navigation menu in LAW301 –
Business and Corporations Law by 11.55 AEST Sunday of Week 5 of the relevant trimester. The
Learning Facilitator will provide feedback via the Grade Centre in the LMS portal. Feedback can
be viewed in My Grades.
Page 3 of 5
Assessment Task
Read the following case scenario and answer the question that follows in not more than 600-800 words
(+/- 10%). The word count will exclude any reference list.
You are an employee in the operations department of a mining company, Fantastic Mining Pty Ltd. The
company has entered into a contract with a staffing solutions provider, Worker Solutions Pty Ltd, to provide
staff on an ongoing basis, to drive the mining trucks that are operated by Fantastic Mining Pty Ltd. The
agreement between Fantastic Mining Pty Ltd and Worker Solutions Pty Ltd is that the staffing company would
provide the workers and pay their wages whilst determining their work system and rosters, while the mining
company would be responsible for maintaining the trucks to ensure that they are in good working order and
are safe to drive when needed.
On the morning of 7 December last year, Simon was driving one of the trucks, having been instructed by
Worker Solutions to do so. On his way to the mines Daniel requested to hitch a ride in the truck, so that he
could get to and repair one of the trucks that had stalled at the entrance of the main mine. Daniel was a local
mechanic who had been requested by the mining company to repair the truck and he intended to drive it
back to the base. As he boarded the truck that Simon was driving, he failed to see the sign on the door of the
truck that stated, “No unauthorized passengers are permitted at any time”. As the ride to the mines was a
short one, Simon did not think twice about giving Daniel a ride. The trip to the mines was a rather bumpy one
and as Simon was navigating the final bend towards the mines at a considerably high speed, he lost control
of the truck, which toppled over and eventually landed on its side. In the process the passenger door of the
truck, which was faulty, flung open and Daniel was thrown out of the truck onto the road where he landed
heavily and broke his right arm. Daniel was hospitalised for a few days and lost the use of his arm for two
months.
It is now February in the following year and your Operations Manager, Stan Lee, has passed on to you a letter
from Daniel’s solicitors demanding that Fantastic Mining accept liability for the injury suffered by Daniel. Stan
believes that it is Worker Solutions that should be held responsible and would like you to write a
memorandum of advice on whether there are grounds to hold Worker Solutions Pty Ltd liable, so that he can
present it to the management committee of the board of directors of Fantastic Mining Pty Ltd.
Required
With reference to relevant legal principles, use the IRAC legal problem-solving approach to draft a suitable
Memorandum of Advice that addresses the nature of the claim that Daniel may make against Fantastic
Mining Pty Ltd and whether in fact Daniel and/or Worker Solutions Pty Ltd can be held liable in any way.
Page 4 of 5
Assessment Rubric
Criteria Fail
High Distinction
85-100%
Identification of
legal issues
10%
Little or no relevant
issues identified
and discussed.
Limited relevant
issues identified
and discussed.
Majority of relevant
issues identified
and discussed.
Identification of
most relevant legal
issues.
_________________________________________________________________
Memorandum of Advice
To: Stan Lee, Operations Manager
From: [Your Name], Employee in the Operations Department
Date: [Date]
Subject: Liability for Injury Suffered by Daniel – Memorandum of Advice
I. Introduction
I have reviewed the circumstances surrounding the injury suffered by Daniel and the potential liability of Fantastic Mining Pty Ltd and Worker Solutions Pty Ltd. This memorandum of advice will address the nature of the claim Daniel may make against Fantastic Mining Pty Ltd and whether Daniel and/or Worker Solutions Pty Ltd can be held liable.
II. Issues
The main legal issues to consider are as follows:
Whether Fantastic Mining Pty Ltd can be held liable for the injury suffered by Daniel.
Whether Worker Solutions Pty Ltd can be held liable for the injury suffered by Daniel.
III. Relevant Legal Principles
A. Vicarious Liability
Under the principle of vicarious liability, an employer may be held responsible for the wrongful acts or omissions of its employees if those acts or omissions occur within the scope of employment. This principle is based on the relationship of employer and employee and the employer’s control over the employee’s actions.
B. Non-Delegable Duty of Care
A non-delegable duty of care arises when a party (the delegator) engages another party (the delegatee) to perform a task, but the delegator retains responsibility for ensuring that the task is carried out safely. In such cases, the delegator cannot absolve itself of liability by delegating the task to a third party.
IV. Application of the Law to the Facts
A. Liability of Fantastic Mining Pty Ltd
Vicarious Liability: Fantastic Mining Pty Ltd may be held vicariously liable for the actions of Simon, the driver of the mining truck, if it can be established that Simon was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. Simon was instructed by Worker Solutions to drive the truck, which suggests that he was performing his duties as an employee of Worker Solutions. Therefore, it is unlikely that Fantastic Mining Pty Ltd can be held vicariously liable for Simon’s actions.
Non-Delegable Duty of Care: While Fantastic Mining Pty Ltd has a duty to maintain the trucks in good working order and ensure their safety, the repair of the stalled truck and Daniel’s decision to board the truck were outside the scope of Fantastic Mining Pty Ltd’s control. Furthermore, the sign on the door of the truck stating that unauthorized passengers are not permitted indicates that Fantastic Mining Pty Ltd took reasonable steps to prevent unauthorized individuals from riding in the trucks. Therefore, it is unlikely that Fantastic Mining Pty Ltd can be held liable under a non-delegable duty of care.
B. Liability of Worker Solutions Pty Ltd
Vicarious Liability: As Daniel boarded the truck in order to repair the stalled vehicle, it can be argued that his actions were within the scope of his employment as a mechanic. If it can be established that Worker Solutions had control over Daniel’s work system and rosters, and that Daniel was acting within the course of his employment at the time of the accident, Worker Solutions may be held vicariously liable for Daniel’s actions.
V. Conclusion
Based on the analysis above, it appears that there are stronger grounds to hold Worker Solutions Pty Ltd liable for the injury suffered by Daniel rather than Fantastic Mining Pty Ltd. Worker Solutions exercised control over the work system and rosters, and Daniel’s actions can be considered within the scope of his employment. Therefore, it is recommended that Fantastic Mining Pty Ltd’s management committee presents the argument that Worker Solutions should be held responsible for Daniel’s injury.
Please note that this memorandum of advice is based on the information provided and should not be considered as a substitute for legal advice from a qualified professional.
Should you require any further clarification or Helpance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]
Employee in the Operations Department
