× Limited Time Offer ! FLAT 20-40% off - Grab Deal Before It’s Gone. Order Now
Connect With Us
Order Now

LAW301 Business and Corporation Law Assignment Sample

Assessment Task

Read the following case scenario and answer the question -

You are an intern in the corporate office of MicRonalds Pty Ltd which runs fast food outlets in different cities around Australia. You have received instructions from Kylie Eagle, the company’s corporate counsel to write a Memorandum of Advice in relation to potential claim by Lizzy Grant, a customer who was recently injured in their MicRonalds’ 24-hour city restaurant.

In the early hours of the morning on 4th January 2022, Lizzy Grant was on her way home from a long and tiring night shift. She decided to stop at the MicRonalds’ 24-hour outlet at 5:30 a.m. to purchase some breakfast. While at the restaurant she ordered her food and as she was waiting, she decided to use the toilets at the far end of the outlet. They were usually very clean. As she approached the toilets, she saw a sign that had been placed at the entrance and which read “Caution: Wet Floor. Cleaning in progress”.

She did not wish to wait for the cleaning to be completed and she went into the toilets. When she was leaving the toilets, she slipped on the wet floor and fell. She suffered a broken wrist and a bruised head. She was not able to return to work for eight weeks. Kylie has informed you that the cleaning of the restaurant toilets on that morning was being done by one of the employees, Lance, who had stepped away to get a dry mop to complete the cleaning. He was also in charge of spot cleaning throughout the day. Lizzy has now threatened to commence proceedings against both MicRonalds Pty Ltd and Lance.

Kylie would like you to write a memorandum of advice on whether there are grounds to hold

MicRonalds Pty Ltd liable. 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 Lizzy Grant may make against MicRonalds Pty Ltd and whether in fact they can be held liable in any way.
Ensure you incorporate relevant case law principles and case law support in your brief?


1. Legal Issue

Lizzy Grant is a customer of MicRonalds. After a long night shift, Lizza Grant decides to stop at the MicRonalds for breakfast. When Lizzy Grant was in the restaurant decided to use the toilet; however, there was a caution sign that the floor was wet and cleaning was in progress. However, Lizza Grant neglected the warning sign and slipped on the wet floor. The issue is whether Lizzy Grant can claim damages from MicRonalds Pty Ltd and Lance.

2. Relevant Law

In the case of Arabi v Glad Cleaning Service Pty Limited (2010), the plaintiff fell and slipped on a pedestrian ramp in the shopping centre at Bankstown. The plaintiff's right knee was injured after the accident occurred. The plaintiff's evidence is that they were talking on the phone while walking up the ramp. It is an occupier's duty to take reasonable care in the commercial premises to avoid a foreseeable risk of injury for both the lawful entrant and their own safety. In this case, a proper system of cleaning and inspection should be considered as per section 5B(1)(B) and Section 5B(2) of the Civil Liability Act 2002, with other relevant things. The court held that if the plaintiff proves the defendant's liability in case of maintenance of insufficient duty of care, then this case will be remitted to the district court for reassessment.

In the case of Vairy v Wyong Shire Council (2005), the High Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal as the possibility of a man being hurt while jumping from the cliff was not beyond the realm of possibility (foreseeable risk). It would be unreasonable to expect the Council to post warning signs at every location within its jurisdiction from where such an accident may occur. Because of its potential for confusion, the idea of "obvious risk" is not to be utilised to adjudicate concerns of breach of duty. Injury predictability must be determined prospectively, considering the state of affairs prior to or during the damage.

In the case of Sleiman v Franklin Food Stores Pty Ltd (1989), the plaintiff went shopping with family in the local shopping centre. The plaintiff found a special product while moving along to the shopping centre. When the plaintiff reached the refrigerator slipped and fell on the floor due to water spillage. The plaintiff's feet were badly injured because the accident occurred. The court held that the occupier breached the duty of care. This incident occurred at a shopping mall, and the plaintiff was a customer. It was the defendant's duty to prevent harm on the commercial premises.

3. Application of the relevant law

Based on the case law mentioned above, MicRonalds Pty Ltd. is not liable for the damages as no negligence was determined under section 5B subsection (1) (a) and (c) of the Civil Liability Act 2002 No 22. The caution sign was placed by Lance, responsible for cleaning the toilet, taking the necessary precaution against the risk of harm under section 5B subsection (2) (a). Moreover, section 5C subsection (a), (b), and (c) further substantiates that the burden of taking precaution, doing an act and taking action to avoid the risk of harm was present in the case. It can be further stated that Lizzy contributed to negligence under section 5R subsection (1) by ignoring Lance's warning sign at the toilet's entrance. Hence, Lizzy was aware yet failed to take precautions against obvious risk under section 5F subsection (2) and section 5G subsection (1).

4. Conclusion

In conclusion, Lizzy cannot claim damages as the incident occurred due to her negligence. 


Civil Liability Act 2002 No 22

Arabi v Glad Cleaning Service Pty Limited [2010] NSWCA 208
Sleiman v Franklin Food Stores Pty Ltd [1989] Aust Torts Reports 80-266
Vairy v Wyong Shire Council [2005] 223 CLR 422

Fill the form to continue reading

Download Samples PDF

Assignment Services