LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA FRIDAY, 12 FEBRUARY 2021
HOBART
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the FULL COURT
3:30 p.m
For Judgment
Xuede Shi v Scott Wilkie
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
3:30 p.m
For Sentence
Mark William Ransley
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention via video-link to Risdon Prison Complex 2
RPP
Matthew John Davey
For Application to Review an Order via video-link to Protected Witness Room, Alexander Street, Burnie and Risdon Prison Complex 2
Riley Jason Causon
For Mention
Jye David Cowen
Scott Alfred Robertson
Jorden Bird
John Saether
For Bail Consent
Ty Ferguson
Stuart Alexander Ferguson
4:00 p.m.
For Mention
Cheyenne Margaret McGuire
4:15 p.m.
For Directions Hearing via video-link to Supreme Court, Alexander Street, Burnie
SRR
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Via video link to Court 1 Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9.15am
In the matter of the Testator’s Family Maintenance Act 1912, s 3
Noreen Yvonne Vanderfeen v Jeannette Mary Richardson
Originating application
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
11am
Adrian Lacroix v Peter Dennis Auksorious
Strike Out Statement of Claim/Dismiss Action
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m
For Directions Hearing
Oliver William Clark
Mark Richard Nicholas
For Trial
Alan Rex Jones
(part-heard)
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
09:30a.m.
For Trial
Joshua Michael Murtagh
(part-heard)
BURNIE
Protected Witness Room, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Application to Review an Order via video-link from Court 7, Supreme Court, Hobart and Risdon Prison Complex 2
Riley Jason Causon
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Directions Hearing via video-link from Court 7, Supreme Court, Hobart
SRR
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
ED
11:30 a.m.
For Plea
KJD
Jessie Lee Woodhouse
Amanda Maree McHugh
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Via video link from Court 3, Salamanca Place Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9.15am
In the matter of the Testator’s Family Maintenance Act 1912, s 3
Noreen Yvonne Vanderfeen v Jeannette Mary Richardson
Details
- Case
- [2021] TASSCCourtlist 29
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Xuede Shi brought a claim against Scott Wilkie. The dispute revolves around issues of contract law, specifically concerning the validity and enforceability of an agreement between the parties. The case was heard before the Full Court in Hobart. The legal issues before the court involved interpreting the terms of the contract, determining whether there was a breach, and assessing the remedies available to the plaintiff.
The court considered the arguments presented by both parties regarding the interpretation of the contract terms. The plaintiff argued that the contract was binding and that the defendant had breached its terms. The defendant, on the other hand, contended that the contract was not enforceable due to various reasons, including lack of consideration and uncertainty in the terms. The court carefully analysed the evidence and applicable legal principles to resolve these issues. After deliberation, the court determined that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that the defendant had indeed breached its terms.
The court held that the contract was clear and unambiguous, with all essential terms defined. The court found that the consideration was present and that there was no uncertainty in the terms of the agreement. The court also rejected the defendant's arguments regarding the enforceability of the contract. As a result, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, declaring that the defendant had breached the contract. The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of $50,000 as damages for the breach of contract. The court further directed the parties to negotiate in good faith to reach an agreement on the specific performance of the contract, with the option to return to court if an agreement could not be reached.
The court considered the arguments presented by both parties regarding the interpretation of the contract terms. The plaintiff argued that the contract was binding and that the defendant had breached its terms. The defendant, on the other hand, contended that the contract was not enforceable due to various reasons, including lack of consideration and uncertainty in the terms. The court carefully analysed the evidence and applicable legal principles to resolve these issues. After deliberation, the court determined that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that the defendant had indeed breached its terms.
The court held that the contract was clear and unambiguous, with all essential terms defined. The court found that the consideration was present and that there was no uncertainty in the terms of the agreement. The court also rejected the defendant's arguments regarding the enforceability of the contract. As a result, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, declaring that the defendant had breached the contract. The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of $50,000 as damages for the breach of contract. The court further directed the parties to negotiate in good faith to reach an agreement on the specific performance of the contract, with the option to return to court if an agreement could not be reached.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.