Describe, giving reasons, how a judge in the High Court might approach Essay

Describe, giving reasons, how a judge in the High Court might approach claims for nervous shock (psychiatric injury) from the de - Essay Example The twins’ father who was at the stadium during the disaster also experienced psychiatric injury but was still able to help the injured others. Issue: Whether or not the psychiatric injury claim of the deceased boy’s grandmother, mother and father would prosper. Cause of Action Cause of action in the instant scenario shall be analyzed in reference to the case of Dulieu v White (1901), a landmark precedent. In that case, the High Court granted the plaintiff’s claim for nervous shock. The defendant’s negligent act actually frightened a pregnant woman which eventually caused her to miscarry. Judge Kennedy J set forth the following requisites for filing a psychiatric injury claim: (1) the fright or shock whether mere or substantial is followed by a physical damage (2) the fright or shock is a natural result of the defendant’s negligence (3) the physical damage done is not too remote to support the claim. Phillimor J added one more requirement, that is, there should be a legal obligation on the defendant’s part not to frighten or shock the plaintiff by his or her negligent act. All of the mentioned requisites should be present in order for cause of action to exist. The respective situations of the deceased twins’ grandmother, mother and father shall be subjected to analysis. As to the twins’ grandmother and mother, it is contended that they have no cause of action. First, no consequent physical damage has transpired after they were frightened. Notably, the two were merely watching the whole event on television. Stated otherwise, they were not located in the place of incidence. Although their fright can be regarded as a normal result of the defendant’s (the stadium owner) negligence, still the third and fourth requisites are not complied with. The remoteness of the physical damage done shall not be dealt with since there was no physical damage to speak of in the first place. As the game was aired on telev ision, the stadium owner had a duty to prevent any circumstance that would frighten the audience. In the given scenario, the horrific event was unluckily televised which shocked the boys’ grandmother and mother. In that respect, the stadium owner is negligent. James and Christopher’s father has also no cause of action. Despite the fact that their father was at the place of incidence, it is to be presumed that he did not suffer any physical damage. It was just stated that he too experienced nervous shock and administered first aid to the injured others. Needless to say, the first requisite is absent. His fright however is a normal effect of the defendant’s negligence. The third requisite is not an issue in this instance. Based on the stated findings, a High Court judge will declare that the twins’ grandmother, mother and father have no cause of action to file a case for psychiatric injury. Each of them may have complied with the second and fourth requisite s but they failed to pass the first and third conditions. This is in pursuance to its simple approach based on the exclusive elements of psychiatric injury. Legal Standing In the present scenario, legal standing (locus standi) shall be discussed in light of the principles enunciated in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (1992). Alcock was one of the injured victims in a crowd crush. In this case, the court did not uphold the plaintiff’s claim for nervous shock. The House of Lords promulgated two requisites for one to have a legal standing in

Analysis of the Benchmark for External Auditors Assignment

Analysis of the Benchmark for External Auditors - Assignment Example Without exception, all external auditors should not allow their independence to be affected by his or her own interests. For, Auditing Standards mandate that external auditors must accept an audit engagement if they feel that their self-interests affect their independence. Independence means not only independence in fact but also go hand in hand with independence through appearance. The Auditing Standards on independence rule states that the auditor must not have any material self-interest in the clients. An auditor has self-interest if the auditor, the auditor's spouse, and children own a share of stock or two in the audit client. The Companies Act of 1948 is the legal framework for external auditors to follow in terms of independence (Power 1997, 17). Clearly, many auditors will not allow their independence to be affected by self -interests. Likewise, it is mandatory that all external auditors will not allow their independence to be affected by self - review. The auditor is required under all audit situations to consider if self -review will affect his independence. The auditor must not continue with the auditor sign as an external auditor if he or she believes that self-review will infringe on the auditor's independence. Clearly, it is mandatory that all external auditors will not allow their independence to be affected by self - review. Further, all external auditors should not allow their independence to be affected by advocacy. The auditor's membership in a group will have a strong impression that the auditor is not being independent in terms of auditing a client. The Code of Ethics for external auditors commands that the external auditor must not have his membership in an organization affect the independence of the auditors. The auditors must be independent in fact and in appearance. For any sign that tinges on decreasing the independence of the external auditor would signal that the external auditor should immediately withdraw from the engagement. Definitely, all external auditors should not allow their independence to be affected by advocacy. Furthermore, all external auditors must not permit their independence to be affected by familiarity. It is a fact that many external auditors can easily finish their audit assignments for many of their former audit clients. The auditors will just focus on accounts that seem doubtful or where the internal control is weak because they had already issued an unqualified opinion on the prior financial statement.  Ã‚