Based on the research using the irac method of law draft a well detailed application applying all the rules. Introduction: In the case provided, Courts Appliances Ltd is facing a legal issue initiated by Rose Gill, who suffered injuries allegedly because of a defective Magic Box purchased from the defendant's store. The Claimant's Statement of Claim accuses Courts Appliances Ltd of negligence in the design, development, and manufacture of the product, resulting in severe injuries and financial loss. However, Ms. Banks, the Managing Director of Courts Appliances Ltd, asserts that the product underwent thorough testing by both regulatory bodies and the company's engineers, and any malfunctions were attributed to the claimant's misuse. This analysis will utilize the IRAC method of law to address the legal issues presented in the case involving Courts Appliances Ltd and the claim brought by Rose Gill. The focus will be on providing advice to Ms. Banks, the Managing Director of Courts Appliances Ltd, on the company's potential defence against the claim and how to approach the default judgment entered against the company. The discussion will be structured using the IRAC method to assess the relevant legal principles, apply them to the facts of the case, and provide a conclusion with recommendations for Ms. Banks.

Issues 1.Can Courts Appliances Ltd challenge or set aside the default judgment entered against them for failing to respond to the claim form within the required timeframe?

2.Can Courts Appliances Ltd be held liable for Rose Gill's injuries due to alleged negligence in manufacturing the Magic Box?

Rules Jamaica Civil Procedure Rules 2015 Part 13, Rule 13.3 Under the Jamaica Civil Procedure Rules 2015 Part 13, Rule 13.3, if a defendant fails to file an acknowledgment of service or defense within the time frame specified in the document, it may lead to a default judgment being entered against them. This means that the claimant will automatically win the case in the absence of a defense. However, the rule also provides an opportunity for the defendant to apply to set aside the default judgment if they have a valid reason for not responding on time. Rule 13.3(2) In considering whether to set aside or vary a judgment under this rule, the court must consider whether the defendant has: a)Applied to the court as soon as is reasonably practicable after finding out that judgment has been entered. b)Given a good explanation for the failure to file an acknowledgement of service or a defence, as the case may be. Contributory Negligence Act in Jamaica 1947 Section 3(1) of the Law Reform Contributory Negligence Act in Jamaica addresses the principle of apportioning liability in cases where damage results. The key provisions of this section are as follows:

"Where any person suffers damage as the result partly of his own fault and partly of the fault of any other person or persons, a claim in respect of that damage shall not be defeated by reason of the fault of the person suffering the damage..."

This provision emphasizes that a claimant's right to seek damages for harm suffered should not be defeated solely because they also bear some responsibility for the damage. It acknowledges that both parties may share fault in causing the harm, and the claimant should not be entirely precluded from seeking compensation.

"...but the damages recoverable in respect thereof shall be reduced to such extent as the court thinks just and equitable having regard to the claimant's share in the responsibility for the damage."

Malcolm v Metropolitan Transport Holdings Ltd [2003] SC JA

In Malcolm v. Metropolitan Transport Holdings Ltd [2003], the court addressed the requirements for setting aside a default judgment under the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules, 2006. The case established that in order to set aside a default judgment, the defendant must satisfy certain criteria under Rule 13.3 of the CPR of Jamaica, including: 1.Applying to the court as soon as reasonably practicable after finding out about the judgment. 2.Providing a good explanation for the failure to file an acknowledgment of service or a defence. 3.Demonstrating a real prospect of successfully defending the claim. The case also highlighted that the test for setting aside a default judgment is akin to the test for summary judgment, where the defendant must show a real prospect of successfully defending the claim.

Rahman v Rahman [1999] LTL

In Rahman v Rahman [1999], the court delineated the factors to be considered when exercising discretion to set aside a default judgment under CPR rule 13.3. These factors encompass: 1.The substance of the defence advanced by the defendant. 2.The duration of the delay and the rationale behind the tardiness in seeking to overturn the default judgment. 3.The potential detriment that the claimant may face should the default judgment be annulled. 4.The overarching objective of the Civil Procedure Rules. This case underscores the necessity for the court to weigh multiple considerations, including the viability of the defence, the causes of the delay, and the possible adverse impact on the claimant, in determining whether to revoke a default judgment.

Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] A.C. 562

In the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932], the House of Lords established the foundational principle of negligence law known as the "neighbour principle." This principle holds that individuals owe a duty of care to those who are reasonably foreseeable to be affected by their actions or omissions. Specifically, Lord Atkin famously articulated that "you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour." This duty of care is owed regardless of contractual relationships and applies to manufacturers who produce goods for consumers. Donoghue v. Stevenson is particularly significant in product liability cases, as it established that manufacturers owe a duty of care to consumers to ensure that their products are safe and free from defects. This duty extends to preventing harm that is reasonably foreseeable, even if there is no direct contractual relationship between the manufacturer and the consumer. The case emphasizes the importance of manufacturers exercising reasonable care and diligence in the design, production, and distribution of their products to prevent harm to consumers. It underscores the principle that individuals and businesses must take responsibility for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their actions or omissions, particularly when those actions or omissions could result in harm to others.

Jones v Livox Quarries Ltd [1952] 2 QB 608

In Jones v. Livox Quarries Ltd [1952], the Court of Appeal established the principle of contributory negligence in negligence cases. The case involved a worker who was injured due to his own failure to follow safety procedures while operating machinery at a quarry. The court held that if a claimant's own negligence contributes to their injury, the damages awarded may be reduced proportionately based on the extent of their contribution to the negligence. This principle recognizes that individuals have a duty to exercise reasonable care for their own safety and well-being, and failure to do so may mitigate the liability of the defendant. Jones v. Livox Quarries Ltd underscores the importance of assessing the actions and conduct of both the claimant and the defendant in negligence cases. It emphasizes that courts should consider the conduct of all parties involved and apportion liability accordingly based on the degree of fault attributable to each party. This principle of contributory negligence serves to promote fairness and proportionality in determining liability and damages in negligence cases, ensuring that each party bears responsibility for their actions or omissions that contribute to the harm suffered.