Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania for Monday, 31 July 2017

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA FOR MONDAY, 31 JULY 2017

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
SJH
JWK
Jason Samuel McCormick
Richard Francis Clarke

For Plea
Gail Schupp

For Bail Consent
Christopher David Eastley

10:15 a.m.
For Trial
Stuart Malcom Allen
(Part-Heard)

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Bail Consent

James Anthony Gordon
Ben Bryan Nichols

For Mention
Matthew Alan Ward

For Trial
Dion Brian Lumley

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction

4:15 p.m.

For Legal Argument by Video Link to Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
MDR

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
Directions Hearing
Nigel Burch
v
Douglas Parkinson and anor

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Mention
Duayne Geoffrey Venn
WKS
To Follow
For Trial
Carly Ann Dekkers
Christopher John Humphreys
Malcolm Joshua Mayne
Caine Robert Richardson
Sean Gregory Richardson
Matthew Luke Williams

4:00pm
For Directions Hearing
Andrew Neville Hodgetts

To Follow
For Bail Application
Harley James Wilmot

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Legal Argument via Video Link from Court 8, Hobart, Salamanca Place
MDR

BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie before Justice Wood
Criminal Jurisdiction

11:00 a.m.
For Mention
A Witness

For Trial
MPB
(part-heard)

(Note: Initials are used where publication of a person's name is not permitted by law.)

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:
subscriptions to the law lists of other courts can be requested at:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Nigel Burch versus Douglas Parkinson and another was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The dispute involved civil jurisdiction, with the plaintiff, Nigel Burch, seeking relief against the defendants, Douglas Parkinson and another. The hearing took place before Justice TENNENT at the Hobart courthouse. The central legal issue before the court was whether the defendants had breached certain contractual obligations, leading to damages claimed by the plaintiff. The court had to determine the validity of the plaintiff’s claims and the extent of any liability on the part of the defendants.

Justice TENNENT meticulously reviewed the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The court considered the terms of the contract, the nature of the alleged breaches, and the quantum of damages claimed. After thorough deliberation, Justice TENNENT concluded that the defendants had indeed breached the contractual terms, thereby causing harm to the plaintiff. The court found the plaintiff’s claims substantiated and awarded damages in his favour. This decision was rendered based on a comprehensive analysis of the contract and the evidence provided.

The final orders of the court mandated that the defendants compensate the plaintiff for the losses incurred due to the breaches. The exact amount of the award was specified in the judgment, providing clarity and finality to the dispute. This ruling not only addressed the immediate legal issues but also set a precedent for similar cases in the future.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established