This assignment has already been submitted by one of our student in past and is just a sample of our paperwork. Please Do not use this for your college project.
Discuss the legal arguments raised by the parties in case
|All the legal arguments are clearly and accurately detailed, and there is a synthesis with the relevant law.||All the legal arguments are clearly and accurately detailed.||Most of legal arguments are clearly and accurately summarised.||Some of the legal arguments are clearly and accurately outlined in brief.||The legal arguments are clearly or accurately outlined.|
Summarise the judgement of the case
|The decision of the judge is accurately detailed with reference to any dissenting judgements or precedents.||The decision of the judge is accurately detailed.||The decision of the judge is accurately summarised in summary format.||The decision of the judge is accurately outlined in brief.||The decision of the judge is inaccurate or incomplete.|
Illustrate the role, purpose and scope of the relevant court, or tribunal.
|The role, purpose, and scope of the court or tribunal were perfectly clear, logical, formatted, and grammatically correct.||The role, purpose, and scope of the court or tribunal were perfectly clear, logical, formatted, and grammatically correct.||The role, purpose, and scope of the court or tribunal were very clear, logical, formatted, and grammatically correct.||The role, purpose, and scope of the court or tribunal were fairly clear, logical, formatted, and grammatically correct.||The role, purpose, and scope of the court or tribunal were absent.|
Following this method
- Explain in detail why the Plaintiff’s claims are (or are not) justified, based on the body of law pertaining to the case.
- How will this law be used by each party to argue their case?
- Use relevant precedent cases or Legal Principles to support each answer.
- You may also choose to use Legislation, when applicable.
- There are often several Plaintiffs involved. Take the time to examine each case individually and analyse why their claims are (or are not) valid.
- Legal Principals and precedent cases are used in each analysis, even if there is overlap among Plaintiffs (the same precedent can be applied to both parties, if appropriate. See example 2).
- It is acceptable to refer the reader to another point in the paper, rather than rewriting it word for word, if the situation calls for the same legal recommendation. (See example 1 and 2)
Note: Take time to discuss the contentious aspects of the case rather than the ones that are most comfortable or obvious.
- Stand back and play ‘the judge.’
- Choose the argument you think is the strongest and articulate what you believe to be the appropriate answer.
- State that is liable for what and to what extent.
- Consider how parties could have acted to better manage their risks in order to avoid this legal problem.
When any person feel that another person disrupted their human or legal rights which are associated with the country and its lead to the loss of that person, or a person trusts that some other person owe his money, so that a person can sue on other person. Plaintiff’s claims are justified or not justified, it is based on the judge decisions, after hearing the both the parties who has appeared in the court, the judge has right to give the final decision on the plaintiff’s claims. It is depend on the judge that is he rules for plaintiff or the defendant, it could be possibilities that judge decision for award something to both the parties. If the judge give decision on the favour of the plaintiff then it should be stated that the justified or if it is discarded than plaintiff would not justified. So in the legal word it could say that the notion is that the defendant would be responsible to the plaintiff due to the defendant is responsible for the injury of the plaintiff when it was justified and when it was not then the defendant would not liable for the plaintiff.
Procedures of law of both parties for argue:
The legal representative could say that lawyer of the plaintiff start the proceeding of the injury. He/ She inform the juridical court for the issues arises, which could be in agreement or that could be dispute among the different parties. Lawyer will state the plaintiff’s case. Afterward the legal representative (lawyer) of the Defendant has a chance to show the defendant’s case explanation.
The lawyer of the plaintiff will ask the Plaintiff and the witnesses of the Plaintiff who would justify the Plaintiff arguments. Both the Plaintiff and the witnesses called separately for the rectification. All question asked by the plaintiff’s lawyers are open ended, which means that questions which cannot be answered in yes or no. All answers need to be given in detail by the witnesses. After the Plaintiff’s lawyer asked the questions, defendant’s lawyer examined the witnesses and it is called the “Cross- examined”. Now that cross questions should be leading questions so that the witnesses could give answers in “Yes” or “No”.
The main aims of the cross examinations are:
- Provoke favorable proof
- Disgrace the proof of the eyewitness that is appearing
- Disgrace the eyewitness that is now appearing
- Disgrace the proof particular by additional witness and also disgrace it
- Procession the case.
At finally lawyer of the defendant would call the witness of the defendant and defendant which will justify the defendant. In this case both witnesses and the defendant will be called separately for the testifying. And now the lawyer of Plaintiff would cross examine the witnesses of the Plaintiff and it will be closed by giving the argument. Lawyer of both Plaintiff and the defendant will deal with the facts and law during their arguments. After argument closed the Court will deliver its judgement. This judgment can be done in one day or few days or immediately.
Justification of the Plaintiff:
As PFS group’s employees’ salaries are not paid, SMSF money was misused, joint ventures’ money are misused, PFS group’s duty of care was breached, false and misleading conducts done by the PFS group, directors was not able to explain their duties and carry trustworthiness, all these misconducts by the PFS group shows that the Plaintiff was justified and PFS group was liable to pay their penalized penalty to the Plaintiffs. Court was clearly able to find that the PFS group had illegal (could say that unlicensed) financial services was running by the PFS group.
Argument Facts of the Plaintiff:
- Misuse of the Self-managed superannuation fund:
As the self-managed superannuation fund was mismanaged by the Mr. White, so that asset was incorporated by the fund and PFS group was monitoring that funds without any license for authority for the same. Like: Warburton Lane settlement had connection with the self-managed superannuation fund without any permission of their trustee. (As per date- January, 30, 2004). Same thing happened with ANZ bank account of Brian Barnard, as money taken and reinvested into the Warburton Lane Settlement and continuously same kind of misleading activity done for the Beckham superannuation funds Deppe’s self-managed superannuation fund. All these argument would be witnessed for the Plaintiff.
- Salaries of the Employee of PFS group was not paid:
Lot of employees of the PFS group had complained for their salaries regularities and when their salary comes to their account, it was come from many different accounts. So that the employer’s account was not defined for the employee and PFS group had very weird policy regarding the salary.
- Joint Ventures money investment mismanagement:
As the properties of the PFS group was organized by the joint ventures with their respective investors, this money was also used without the authority of the investors, so in the case of the Mills Wart hold $73200 was misused, Ash ridge Lane development was processing and financing by the money used by the joint ventures funds. So in this argument again PFS group could be caught and liable for the payment.
- Breach of Duty of Care:
PFS group was also not care about the duty of care and they breached the duty of care, during the avoidance of the Corporation act, director of the PFS group caught against many of the companies, they carried the business of financial services without the permission and license of the Australian financial services department. They were involved in the duty breach of director; they conduct the false and mismanaged work.
Other Misleading activities of the PFS Group:
- PFS group were not paying their debt in time as well as salary of the employees. They put their all debt unpaid. PFS group pay their debt on the basis of the urgency and always try to pay delay as much as possible for the PFS group.
- They were also found that 7 companies of the defendant were involved in the ambiguous and unreliable activities.
- As there was lot of misleading activities in the PFS group, it was quite obvious that their record keeping or account book was not sufficient to produce proper evidence of the company’s activities.
- There was lot of misleading activities and mismanagement in the PFS group, like transaction done by one company to other company and there were no records for it. They found guilty under the ASIC act.
- There was lot of expenses by the directors of the companies without the proper record of the expenses.
As per the above analysis it could be easily identified that the PFS group and their directors are clearly involved in the misleading and disruptive kinds of activities. In this case Plaintiff’s lawyer will call the witness as the employee of the PFS group, account holders of the superannuation funds whose account was mismanage, etc. and cross examined by the defendant’s lawyer, however in the favour of the defendant accountant of the company and other directors could called as witnessed separately and again they would examined by the Plaintiff’s lawyer.
But all issues was very clearly identified and it can be easily proved that superannuation funds and other ventures funds was used without the permission of the concerned person, PFS group and their director would be find false and they would be liable to pay the penalized amount decided by the court.