Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Friday, 25 November 2016

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA FRIDAY, 25 NOVEMBER 2016

HOBART

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the FULL COURT
9:15 a.m.
For Judgment via video-link to
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie and
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Thomas Gardam
v
WTH Pty Ltd t/as Avis Australia

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Simon James Larritt
Stephanie Anne Maree Duggan
Dale Reginald Loone
Zachary Nathaniel Galpin
BLN
Mark William Eather
Adrian Michael Flounders
Paul Anthony Terare

For Directions Hearing
Mark Anthony Lanteri

For Bail Consent
AJM
Scott Andrew Cripps
KMP
Michael Paul Stewart
Beven Walker Dwyer
Kyle Rix Stephens

For Plea
HLC
JNW
Brendan David Cranston
Emily Claire Noga
Nicholas Aaron Scott
Tristan Jacob Hinds

For Bail Application
Warren Leslie Hill
Nicholas Andrew Burn
Michael Thomas Jones
Phillip Maxwell Jones

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Terrence James Burn

For Bail Application
Michael John Latham
Corey Leigh Thorpe
Travis Lee Frankcombe
Sean Patrick Mahoney

In Chambers, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Telephone Directions Hearing
Ryan Michael Zmendak

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:45 a.m.
For Judgment
Nicholas Cashmore Dennis & Anor
v
Telfer Anne Dennis & Ors

10:00 a.m.
For Trial
George Westbrooke Burton SNR
v
George Westbrook Burton JNR & Ors

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before the FULL COURT

9:15am For Judgment via video-link

From Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Thomas Gardam

WTH Pty Ltd t/as Avis Australia

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Mention
John Rettas
David Brian Langford
TJC

To Follow
For Plea
Matthew John Whatley
Justin Joseph Ewell

2:15pm For Bail Application
NHJR

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie

Before the FULL COURT

9:15 a.m.

For Judgment via video-link

From Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Thomas Gardam

WTH Pty Ltd t/as Avis Australia

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice Brett

Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.

For Mention by Video Link
Brady Christopher Oates

For Sentence

Jessica Jean Rose Streets

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

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania involved Thomas Gardam as the appellant and WTH Pty Ltd t/as Avis Australia as the respondent. The dispute centred on the determination of the liability of Avis Australia under a hire agreement for a vehicle that was stolen. The case was heard via video-link from Hobart to Burnie and Launceston. The primary issue before the court was whether Avis Australia was liable for the theft of the vehicle under the hire agreement, specifically whether there were any terms in the agreement that absolved Avis Australia of liability in such an event. This was a matter of interpreting the terms of the contract and determining the extent of the liability of the hire company in the event of theft.

The court considered the terms of the hire agreement and the circumstances surrounding the theft. It was noted that the hire agreement included a clause that limited the liability of Avis Australia in the event of theft, provided that the hirer had taken reasonable precautions. The court had to decide whether the hirer had indeed taken reasonable precautions, which would then limit Avis Australia's liability. After reviewing the evidence and the terms of the agreement, the court concluded that the hirer had not taken reasonable precautions and that Avis Australia was therefore liable for the full value of the stolen vehicle. The reasoning was based on the interpretation of the hire agreement and the application of contract law principles to the facts of the case.

The outcome of the case was that the appeal by Thomas Gardam was dismissed. The Full Court upheld the decision of the lower court that held Avis Australia liable for the full value of the stolen vehicle. The court found that the hirer had not taken reasonable precautions as required by the terms of the hire agreement, and thus Avis Australia could not be absolved of liability under the contract. The final orders of the court were that Thomas Gardam's appeal was dismissed, and Avis Australia remained liable for the full value of the stolen vehicle.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established