Referencing Styles : Harvard 1. Stanchion v The Pogo Pole, a 1979 decision of the Privy Council. In this case, the Privy Council ruled that a patron could not bring an action for damages on the basis that they were refused entry to a club for failing to submit to a technology security check.2. The Discerning Drinks Club v Deoch, a 2013 decision of the High Court of Australia, on appeal from the Victorian Court of Appeal, who earlier ruled in favour of the plaintiff/appellant (Deoch) … View More 1. Stanchion v The Pogo Pole, a 1979 decision of the Privy Council. In this case, the Privy Council ruled that a patron could not bring an action for damages on the basis that they were refused entry to a club for failing to submit to a technology security check. 2. The Discerning Drinks Club v Deoch, a 2013 decision of the High Court of Australia, on appeal from the Victorian Court of Appeal, who earlier ruled in favour of the plaintiff/appellant (Deoch) and awarded damages for inappropriate refusal from a nightclub due to technology screening. Due to illness, the High Court of Australia sat with six justices. The High Court was split 3 – 3 in its ultimate decision. 3. Selitos v The Salacious Shot Glass, a 2014 decision of the Queensland District Court. In this case, the court ruled that damages could not be awarded to a patron who was refused entry for not engaging in a technology security check. The Queensland District Court made no mention of the High Court decision of The Discerning Drinks Club v Deoch. 4. Denna v The Beautiful Game Bar a decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal given in early 2015. In this case, the New South Wales Court of Appeal followed the earlier precedent of Stanchion v The Pogo Pole (even though they were not technically bound to do so) and damages were not awarded to the plaintiff / appellant (Denna). 5. Lanre v Myr Taraniel Betrayal Bar, a 2017 decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal. In this case, the Court of Appeal decided that damages could not be awarded to a patron who was refused entry to a bar, given that they did not comply with a technology security check. The Queensland Court of Appeal acknowledged the decision in The Discerning Drinks Club v Deoch, but believed that the case was distinguishable due to its specific facts. Advise Judge Fourton which case her Honour should follow and explain your reasoning. [TOTAL: 14 MARKS] QUESTION 2 (a) In Question 1, Jackis v The Eolian was first heard in the Queensland District Court. That means the damages sought by Jackis must have fallen between what two dollar figures? Provide authority for your answer. (b) In the event of an unsuccessful initial hearing, which court would Jackis appeal to? Would this appeal be as of right, or wou Read Less