DRE 2020 PRIMARY EXAM FEEDBACK
Primary Examination for the University of Adelaide
Semester 1, 2020
FEEDBACK
This exam paper contained FIVE (5) questions. You were required to answer all questions.
Each question was worth equal marks.
This exam raised many issues, as does all litigation. This meant that outstanding students had
the opportunity to show the extent of their knowledge. It also meant that all students had plenty
of issues and directions to choose from – good answers might well have missed some issues, but
picked up others, so within the great range of possibilities, you could be confident of being able
to talk about some of them.
We looked for a few things in marking, that you could:
1 Identify and understand what the key issues are
2 Understand what law/rules/process will apply to the issue
3 Show understanding of how that process works with reference to rules and cases
4 Apply the rules and cases TO THE FACTS in an integrated way
5 Discuss the broad impact of the issue (and choices made to resolve it) on future
strategy
6 Ability to discuss the higher complex issues that arise in the questions with reference
to a range of sources and policy.
7 Identify ALL the issues, evaluate relevance and demonstrate how the issue interlink.
1-3 are really the benchmark of a functional Pass. If you demonstrated these things you have
the capacity to work with the rules. Answers could be quite basic (50s), show a good starting
knowledge but not have quite enough depth (60 +) and range up to a low C.
4-7 are the steps in producing sequentially more sophisticated answers. Students who made
it all the way through 1-7 in every answer were be marked at the very top of the scale.
Most students did really well in some questions, not so well in others, and fall somewhere in
the middle overall.
The following notes on exam answers provide an overview of the issues embedded in each
exam question. They cover the main issues but are not exhaustive.
Lillian’s lawyers commission a shadow expert to examine Zhang’s Olives for explanations of the
poor health and low productivity of the olive trees. The shadow expert report indicates that in
the areas indicated in Lillian’s rough drawing of the dead trees in the grove the olives trees have
8
, DRE 2020 PRIMARY EXAM FEEDBACK
been mulched with pine bark. The expert states that acidic mulches such as pine bark may have
a pH of 3.5 to 4.5. When you apply them continually, they may, over several years, cause the
surface soil to become too acidic. In areas where the pine bark mulch has been used there is
corrosion on the zinc plating of the connecters between the solenoids and the piping. In the
areas in which the olive trees were not affected (as per that drawing) there is no evidence that
pine bark mulch has been used.
The expert concludes that the cause of the breakdown of the irrigation system in the areas
indicated in Lillian’s drawing is more likely than not corrosion of the zinc plating of the
connections which has allowed water into the protective casing of the solenoids, which in turn
has prevented them working properly. Further testing would be required to determine if
corrosion of the zinc plating is a consequence of increased acidity in the soil as a consequence of
the use of pine bark mulch or was due to a manufacturing fault. The expert also suggests that
unused solenoids from the same batches that were used in Lillian’s property that have not been
exposed to the elements in the olive grove should be tested to establish if there are
manufacturing faults in the zinc plating.
The solenoids on Lillian’s property have all been installed but she recalls that Denis told her
immediately after the installation was completed that he had over-ordered on solenoids and
would keep the spares in the storeroom at RES in case she needed them in the future as
replacement parts. However, she has also heard from local farmers that Denis Resch has been
angrily discussing the case against her at the local pub. She is told by her local publican that
Denis recently stated that he was “going to go through the warehouse and get rid of anything
that could help that b*#^% Lillian. She is making my life hell with this legal action.”
QUESTION 1 (you are acting for Lillian)
What would you advise Lillian to do to gain access to the unused solenoids? Explain
what application/s she should make and why, summarise the arguments that should
be presented, and evaluate the likely outcome.
Best course of action may depend on urgency.
A range of options should have been canvassed, including:
writing to the other side and asking to test the unused solenoids
applying for testing UCCR 112.11 for preservation of evidentiary material,
testing evidentiary material etc
applying for a search order under UCCR 112.2. Students needed to consider
whether there is sufficient urgency in this context to warrant an ex parte
application for a search order.
For each possible application it was necessary to explain the application process,
documents that should be filed, test that would apply, likely arguments and outcome.
An excellent answer also needed to discuss ex parte applications and the obligation to
present arguments the other side would make if they were present. See PCR 19.4
A junior solicitor working on Lillian’s case is asked to send through all the expert reports to
8
Primary Examination for the University of Adelaide
Semester 1, 2020
FEEDBACK
This exam paper contained FIVE (5) questions. You were required to answer all questions.
Each question was worth equal marks.
This exam raised many issues, as does all litigation. This meant that outstanding students had
the opportunity to show the extent of their knowledge. It also meant that all students had plenty
of issues and directions to choose from – good answers might well have missed some issues, but
picked up others, so within the great range of possibilities, you could be confident of being able
to talk about some of them.
We looked for a few things in marking, that you could:
1 Identify and understand what the key issues are
2 Understand what law/rules/process will apply to the issue
3 Show understanding of how that process works with reference to rules and cases
4 Apply the rules and cases TO THE FACTS in an integrated way
5 Discuss the broad impact of the issue (and choices made to resolve it) on future
strategy
6 Ability to discuss the higher complex issues that arise in the questions with reference
to a range of sources and policy.
7 Identify ALL the issues, evaluate relevance and demonstrate how the issue interlink.
1-3 are really the benchmark of a functional Pass. If you demonstrated these things you have
the capacity to work with the rules. Answers could be quite basic (50s), show a good starting
knowledge but not have quite enough depth (60 +) and range up to a low C.
4-7 are the steps in producing sequentially more sophisticated answers. Students who made
it all the way through 1-7 in every answer were be marked at the very top of the scale.
Most students did really well in some questions, not so well in others, and fall somewhere in
the middle overall.
The following notes on exam answers provide an overview of the issues embedded in each
exam question. They cover the main issues but are not exhaustive.
Lillian’s lawyers commission a shadow expert to examine Zhang’s Olives for explanations of the
poor health and low productivity of the olive trees. The shadow expert report indicates that in
the areas indicated in Lillian’s rough drawing of the dead trees in the grove the olives trees have
8
, DRE 2020 PRIMARY EXAM FEEDBACK
been mulched with pine bark. The expert states that acidic mulches such as pine bark may have
a pH of 3.5 to 4.5. When you apply them continually, they may, over several years, cause the
surface soil to become too acidic. In areas where the pine bark mulch has been used there is
corrosion on the zinc plating of the connecters between the solenoids and the piping. In the
areas in which the olive trees were not affected (as per that drawing) there is no evidence that
pine bark mulch has been used.
The expert concludes that the cause of the breakdown of the irrigation system in the areas
indicated in Lillian’s drawing is more likely than not corrosion of the zinc plating of the
connections which has allowed water into the protective casing of the solenoids, which in turn
has prevented them working properly. Further testing would be required to determine if
corrosion of the zinc plating is a consequence of increased acidity in the soil as a consequence of
the use of pine bark mulch or was due to a manufacturing fault. The expert also suggests that
unused solenoids from the same batches that were used in Lillian’s property that have not been
exposed to the elements in the olive grove should be tested to establish if there are
manufacturing faults in the zinc plating.
The solenoids on Lillian’s property have all been installed but she recalls that Denis told her
immediately after the installation was completed that he had over-ordered on solenoids and
would keep the spares in the storeroom at RES in case she needed them in the future as
replacement parts. However, she has also heard from local farmers that Denis Resch has been
angrily discussing the case against her at the local pub. She is told by her local publican that
Denis recently stated that he was “going to go through the warehouse and get rid of anything
that could help that b*#^% Lillian. She is making my life hell with this legal action.”
QUESTION 1 (you are acting for Lillian)
What would you advise Lillian to do to gain access to the unused solenoids? Explain
what application/s she should make and why, summarise the arguments that should
be presented, and evaluate the likely outcome.
Best course of action may depend on urgency.
A range of options should have been canvassed, including:
writing to the other side and asking to test the unused solenoids
applying for testing UCCR 112.11 for preservation of evidentiary material,
testing evidentiary material etc
applying for a search order under UCCR 112.2. Students needed to consider
whether there is sufficient urgency in this context to warrant an ex parte
application for a search order.
For each possible application it was necessary to explain the application process,
documents that should be filed, test that would apply, likely arguments and outcome.
An excellent answer also needed to discuss ex parte applications and the obligation to
present arguments the other side would make if they were present. See PCR 19.4
A junior solicitor working on Lillian’s case is asked to send through all the expert reports to
8
