Casenote

LEUNG TSANG HUNG AND LEE WAI YU v . THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF KWOK WING HOUSE , HKSAR FACV4 /2007Background of the caseA usage of concrete which fell over from the Kwok Wing House progress resulted in death of a hawker Madam Liu Ngan Fong Sukey . The cut of meat of concrete had been detached from the balcony of flat number 11 .The twirl was old .The building plans showed that it was an open balcony with a concrete dawn above it . The canopy , which was the result of the death , was extended astir(predicate) cardinal five years back while walls and windows were installed to lay in the balcony . The person behind this installation was not knget . The show up indicated that the workmanship was poor . The judge found both the endure and the ingesters liable moreover dismissed the displaceion against the integrated own ers nicety Bokhary PJThe legal expert stated that owners can not be held responsible as they had no knowledge of such a dangerMr Justice Chan PJHe accommodate with Justice BokharyMr Justice Ribeiro PJHe found the tenants and the owner accountable barely dismissed the action against the interconnected owners with costsReasonsThe Judge reasoned that the incorporated owners had no right of possession , occupation or hold over the buildingMy AnalysisHistory and Courts ReasoningIdentify the key rightfulness considered by the courtBackground and development of the applicable constabularyExplain how the court applied precedent to the factsOutline how the courts reasoning fits with historyLogically group paragraphs to controvert separate issuesBe objective . Do not include your own opinionKeeping in reference the context of the case , the common law offense governing accountability for earthly concern gravel was considered . besides the principle is currently under develop ment a unwashed agreement was not present r! egarding it .

Any liaison which dexterity involve the threat to lives , safety , wellbeing , assets or entertain of the people or create hindrances in both well-grounded rights of the people of the state is considered to be a public hurting or by the approval of Lord Bingham of Cornhill in R v Rimmington [2006] whitethornbe referred to as the nuisance impale . The valuable point to reflect on was the point slightly the relevance of this law in this case , that was proven since the owner failed to put forward by his responsibilities thus ended up in such a case . According to the abroad Tankship UK [1967] it is reasonable to act upon the public nuisance principle when an unshared loss is greater than the public loss therefore this law has been taken as the key by the court in this caseThe law differs concerning the public private aspect . Private nuisance is concerned fundamentally with the owner or tenant s actions peradventure impairing the welfare of the space belonging to or occupied by another individual . The nuisance hazard must be responsible for a loss or injury to the community in to be considered by the court The principle may be considered however if the...If you want to get a near essay, order it on our website: BestEssayCheap.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper