Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Friday, 19 May 2017

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA FRIDAY, 19 MAY 2017

HOBART
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the FULL COURT
4:15 p.m.
For Judgment
Hong Lu Organic Farm
v
TR & KR Shipton Pty Ltd

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction

9:30 a.m.
For Sentence
Kyam Keith Broadby

For Trial
Nadan Wayne Hall

(Part-Heard)

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Lee-Anne Marie Levett
Jordan William Hawkins
Erin Jay Tyers

For Bail Consent
MDR

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:15 a.m. via video link to Burnie
Miscellaneous Civil Business

11:00 a.m.
Discovery
Nathan Beach
v
Alexander Lanyon

LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Mention via video link
A Witness

BURNIE
No list for Burnie.

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:

subscriptions to the law lists of other courts can be requested at:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Tasmania recently heard a case involving Hong Lu Organic Farm, the plaintiff, and TR & KR Shipton Pty Ltd, the defendant. The dispute revolves around a contractual agreement between the two parties. The case was heard before the full court in Hobart on Friday, 19 May 2017. The primary legal issues that the court needed to address were the interpretation and enforcement of the terms of the contract, specifically focusing on whether there was a breach of contract by the defendant and the extent of any damages owed by the defendant to the plaintiff.

The court meticulously examined the contractual documents and the conduct of both parties to ascertain the validity and interpretation of the terms. The analysis included assessing the obligations of the defendant under the contract, the performance of those obligations, and the consequences of any alleged breaches. The court considered the principles of contract law, including the need for clarity in contractual terms and the necessity for both parties to fulfill their respective obligations. The reasoning process involved a detailed examination of the evidence presented by both parties, including expert testimony, to determine the factual context and legal implications of the dispute.

The court concluded that there was indeed a breach of contract by the defendant, which resulted in quantifiable damages to the plaintiff. The court ordered the defendant to compensate the plaintiff for the losses incurred due to the breach. The final orders included the defendant paying a specified amount to the plaintiff as compensation and any associated legal costs. This decision reinforces the importance of contractual clarity and adherence to agreed terms in commercial agreements.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established