Legal Process Wallace Gromit Under the Building †Free Samples

Question: Discuss about the Legal Process Wallace Gromit Under the Building. Answer: Issue: In this case, Wallace Gromit possesses a pub called The Outback Hotel in Alice Springs, which was not renovated as per remarkable brick construction rules of the territory. In last year, the famous pop group Two Directions adverts to shoot for Australian tourism in Alice Springs. For this, they turned up to The Outback Hotel for one night. In this event, their most popular member Henry Giles received an electric shock through microphone and expired instantly[1]. The unfortunately death caused an expression of sorrow among teenagers all over the world and these people also visited The Outback Hotel to leave flowers, cards and pay their respects at the temporary shrine of Henry Giles, which was situated on hotels stage. In this situation, Wallace Gromit got unwell and changed whole interior with pokie machines and destroyed the stage, where Henry died and the shrine. Therefore, the issue is this case is that which rules and regulations were not followed by Wallace Gromit under the buil ding. As well as, the sub issues are: Issue of permits from authorities Certified applications for building permits Building approval certificates Rules: In this case, Wallace Gromit may be charged by court under s4 of Preservation of Significant Historical Buildings Act 2017. These s4 are related to the preservation of historical and community value buildings such as historical places, memorial places or any shrine. These s4 of this Act are as below: Object: The object of this Act is to protect precious historical buildings and other structures, which have significant cultural value for the community[2]. Applied definitions in the Act: In this Act, building is defined as any man-made construction including a house, shed or field. Term damage comprises to significant and permanent alternation to the building. Moreover, cultural or historical significance means having cultural or historical importance to the major proportion of population[3]. According to these defined terms if an individual not followed these terms than he will be charged with monetary or non-monetary terms. Failure in maintaining a historical or cultural building: According to Preservation of Significant Historical Buildings Act 2017, it will be an offence for a vendor of a building of cultural or historical significance if he fails to preserve or maintain the building in a reasonable state of refurbish. In this situation, the owner or vendor of the building may be penalized with maximum $5000 fine by the court. Causing to damage a historical or cultural building: According to Preservation of Significant Historical Buildings Act 2017, it is a legal offence for an individual to destroy, damage, or otherwise hinder with a building of cultural or historical significance. The defendant may be charged with $20000 fine or up to 2 years imprisonment by the court against this offence. In other words, if a historical or community place is damaged and destroyed by an individual than he will be charged monetary or non-monetary amount. In addition, under Building Services (Registration) Act 2011 and Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 to do building their will be requirement of building permit from the authorities and needs to follow the safety rules for humanity[4]. Application From the above interpretation it is observed that Preservation of Significant Historical Buildings Act 2017 will impact to Wallace Gromits action. In this case, this building Act defines that if an individual damages to a building, which a historical or community value in a territory than that individual will be charged by monetary or non-monetary claim[5]. In this case, the defendant is charged under all level of the government (local, state, national and international). The rules related to the Act that are applicable in identifying, protecting and managing the significant place of historical and community value. Here, the Preservation of Significant Historical Buildings Act 2017 also explains the role of different groups that defend the Australian cultural heritage places included in the UNESCO world heritage[6]. Conclusion From the above discussion it can be concluded that Wallace Gromit is defendant according to Preservation of Significant Historical Buildings Act 2017 in two aspects. Firstly, at the time of possession of pub, the building of pub was not renovated or refurbished according remarkable brick construction rule of the state. Secondly, the pub building also not follows the rules 1st, rule 2nd and rule 4th of Preservation of Significant Historical Buildings Act 2017. Wallace Gromit went in wrong way and destroyed the shrine of Henry Giles, which has cultural value for the community because a big part of the community has respect for this person. In both legal aspects, Wallace Gromit went against the significance rules of historical and community buildings therefore, he will be charged with maximum $20000 or up to 2 years imprisonment by the court. In addition, Wallace Gromit also not followed the rules and regulations of building act 2011 and Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 which cau sed of electric shock. Therefore, he will be charged with monetary value more than $20000 also. References: Victoria State Government, Legislation and other protections for cultural heritage (2014) https://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/heritage/about-heritage-in-victoria/legislation-and-other-protections-for-cultural-heritage. Douglas S. Noonan, and Douglas J. Krupka, Makingor pickingwinners: evidence of internal and external price effects in historic preservation policies(2011) 39(2) Real Estate Economics379. Kiruthiga, and K. Thirumaran, Visual perception on the architectural elements of the built heritage of a historic temple town: A case study of Kumbakonam, India (2017) 6(1)Frontiers of Architectural Research 96. K. Kiruthiga, and K. Thirumaran, Visual perception on the architectural elements of the built heritage of a historic temple town: A case study of Kumbakonam, India (2017) 6(1)Frontiers of Architectural Research 96. Victoria State Government, Legislation and other protections for cultural heritage (2014) https://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/heritage/about-heritage-in-victoria/legislation-and-other-protections-for-cultural-heritage. Douglas S. Noonan, and Douglas J. Krupka, Makingor pickingwinners: evidence of internal and external price effects in historic preservation policies(2011) 39(2) Real Estate Economics379. Government of Western Australia, Building Act 2011 Overview. (2011). https://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/publications/building-act-2011-overview. Victoria State Government, Legislation and other protections for cultural heritage (2014) https://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/heritage/about-heritage-in-victoria/legislation-and-other-protections-for-cultural-heritage. Victoria State Government, Legislation and other protections for cultural heritage (2014) https://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/heritage/about-heritage-in-victoria/legislation-and-other-protections-for-cultural-heritage.