Part ANguyen v Hiotis and City of Charles Sturt [2000] SASC 88 (May 11, 2000)1. The plaintiff, Nguyen, brought an action for damages for personal injury at a fashion show owned and occupied by the second defendant, City of Charles Sturt. The statement of claim asserted that the second defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff given that the second defendant, as owner and occupier of the venue, had rented the venue to the organizer who had failed to provide satisfactory security. The second defendant sought an order for the State to strike out the claim made by the plaintiff, on the basis that he did not state any cause of action against the second defendant. The question for the court to decide is whether the claim pleaded by the plaintiff against the second defendant has a plausible basis or an arguable cause of action for negligence, and therefore whether it is arguable that the second defendant had a duty to diligence towards the applicant. to ensure his safety and security during this fashion show initiated by the first defendant, Hiotis.2. Section 5(1) of the Occupier's Liability Act 1985 (WA) is different from section 17C(1) of the Wrongs Act 1936 (SA) in that the Occupier's Liability Act affirms the need to exercise controls on the behavior of people attending the event. local. “The care that an occupant of premises is required, by reason of the occupation or control of the premises, to show towards a person entering them with regard to the dangers which are due to the state of the premises places or anything that has been done or omitted. to be done on the premises and for which the occupant is legally responsible. (section 5(1) of the Occupier's Liability Act 1985 (WA)) Section 17C(1) of the Wrongs Act invokes only middle principles...... middle of paper ...... response to this question does nothing else to reduce the bacteria and consumers' risk of infection, the court will decide that your answer is unreasonable. Orange-ic is failing in its duty of care if no other measures are taken to mitigate or prevent this bacteria. in orange juice and is liable to prosecution under section 5 of the Civil Liability Act 2002. I recommend Orange-ic consider pasteurizing their oranges to mitigate the risk that a consumer could be exposed to bacteria such as E.Coli or Salmonella. This will also allow you to reapply for an export license, which will increase your distribution and thus create greater income for your business. I hope you will consider the legal advice I have given you in this report, helping you decide which direction to take. Orange-ic will take the future of Orange-ic juice production.