LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA FRIDAY, 7 MAY 2021
HOBART
Court 2, Salamanca Place, HobartBefore Chief Justice BLOWCivil Jurisdiction2:00p.m.For Hearing Chien Cheng Liao
v
Cemcon Developments Pty Ltd
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Allen Michael Prestage and ors v Melissa Jayne Barrett
Michael Thorne and ors v Melissa Jayne Barrett
Scott Francis Howells and ors v Melissa Jayne Barrett
(Part-heard)
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00 p.m.
For Sentence
Rachelle Maree O’Brien
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Trial
KWDF
(Part-heard)
12:00pm
For Application to Vary Bail
Damien Steven Matthews
For Bail Application
Zachery Saul Syme
For Plea
Bradley Jones
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9:15a.m. via video link to Supreme Court Conference Room, Alexander Street, BurnieFor Mention
Steven Kons v Local Government Code of Conduct Panel and anor
For Mention
Tracey Lee Blocki v Gabriele Ann Hansen
For Mention
Ruth Marcelo Schweinitz v Teresa Margarita Schweinitz and ors
11:00a.m.
For Hearing – Preliminary Point
Konrad Peter Plachta as Administrator of the Estate of the Late Bettina Fairbairn v Nicholas Lachlan Fairbairn and ors
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Trial
Jack-Harrison Vincent Sadler
(part heard)
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m
For Mention
Simon James Balfour
10:00 a.m
For Mention
Jacqueline Maree Broomhall
Samuel John Johnson
Peter Christian Rogers
Liam Kerry Whitton-Lowe
Max Elliott Waymouth
For Trial
Michael Andrew SmithSupreme Court Conference Room, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9:15a.m. via video link from Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
For Mention
Steven Kons v Local Government Code of Conduct Panel and anor
For Mention
Tracey Lee Blocki v Gabriele Ann Hansen
For Mention
Ruth Marcelo Schweinitz v Teresa Margarita Schweinitz and ors
Details
- Case
- [2021] TASSCCourtlist 137
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Chien Cheng Liao v Cemcon Developments Pty Ltd was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania before Chief Justice Blow. The plaintiff, Chien Cheng Liao, brought an action against the defendant, Cemcon Developments Pty Ltd, seeking a declaration that the parties' contract was void and that the defendant return to the plaintiff the sum of $500,000. The legal issues that the court needed to decide included whether the contract between the parties was void, and if so, whether the plaintiff was entitled to the return of the sum of $500,000. The court found that the contract was void due to the parties' mutual mistake of fact, and that the plaintiff was entitled to the return of the sum of $500,000. The court further held that the plaintiff was not entitled to any further damages or costs.
The court's reasoning was based on the principle of mutual mistake of fact, which occurs when both parties to a contract are mistaken about a basic assumption on which the contract was made, and the mistake has a material effect on the agreed exchange of performances. The court found that the parties had a mutual mistake of fact about the identity of the property that was the subject of the contract, which had a material effect on the agreed exchange of performances. The court held that the contract was therefore void, and that the plaintiff was entitled to the return of the sum of $500,000. The court further held that the plaintiff was not entitled to any further damages or costs, as the contract was void ab initio and there was no basis for an award of damages or costs.
The court's reasoning was based on the principle of mutual mistake of fact, which occurs when both parties to a contract are mistaken about a basic assumption on which the contract was made, and the mistake has a material effect on the agreed exchange of performances. The court found that the parties had a mutual mistake of fact about the identity of the property that was the subject of the contract, which had a material effect on the agreed exchange of performances. The court held that the contract was therefore void, and that the plaintiff was entitled to the return of the sum of $500,000. The court further held that the plaintiff was not entitled to any further damages or costs, as the contract was void ab initio and there was no basis for an award of damages or costs.
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.