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 case of Hong Lu Organic Farm versus TR & KR Shipton Pty Ltd was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The dispute involved issues related to property and contractual obligations. The plaintiffs, Hong Lu Organic Farm, alleged that the defendants, TR & KR Shipton Pty Ltd, breached contractual terms related to the use of a property. The case was presented before the full court in Hobart, with proceedings taking place in Court 1 at Salamanca Place.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether there had been a breach of contract, the nature and extent of any such breach, and the appropriate remedies or compensation for the plaintiffs. The court needed to interpret the terms of the contract and assess whether the actions of the defendants constituted a breach. Additionally, the court had to determine the appropriate measure of damages, if any, that the plaintiffs were entitled to claim.

The court's reasoning focused on a detailed analysis of the contractual terms and the actions taken by the defendants. It examined the specific clauses of the agreement and the evidence provided by both parties. The court concluded that there had indeed been a breach of contract by the defendants, which resulted in financial losses for the plaintiffs. The court awarded damages to the plaintiffs, considering both direct losses and additional costs incurred due to the breach. The final orders included a monetary compensation to the plaintiffs, reflecting the court's determination of the breach and the extent of damages owed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established