Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Monday, 11 September 2017

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA MONDAY, 11 SEPTEMBER 2017

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Casey Nicholas Booth

For Trial
Matthew John Davey
Michelle Lee Arnott
Dillon Anthony Davey

Scott Raymond Dale

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice SLICER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Patrick Charles Hay

For Mention via video link
Stephanie Anne Maree Duggan

For Trial
Stuart Norton Woods
(Part Heard)

4:00 p.m.
For Sentence
Christopher Roy Butt

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
3:00 p.m.
For Variation of Bail
Via video link to Supreme Court,
Alexander Street, Burnie
KJW

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
In Court as in Chambers
4:30 p.m.
For Judgment via video link to Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Peter Francis Thomas Brooks
v
Barry Maxwell Easther and Norma Lynn Mason

To follow
In Court
For Judgment via video link to Court 1,
Cameron Street, Launceston
RV Pty Ltd
v
Connector Park Pty Ltd

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction

2:15 p.m.
Directions Hearings by telephone
Westpac Banking Corporation v Jillian Saltmarsh & anor
Michael Saltmarsh & anor v Westpac Banking Corporation

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
4:30pm For Judgment via video link from
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Peter Francis Thomas Brooks
v
Barry Maxwell Easther and Norma Lynn Mason

To Follow
For Judgment via video link from
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
RV Pty Ltd v Connector Park Pty Ltd

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Trial
Duayne Geoffrey Venn

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm For Directions Hearing
AO

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction

10.00am For Mention
Jack Dale
Gary Hilton Williams

To Follow
For Trial
MAC

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Acting Justice PORTER

Criminal Jurisdiction via
Video link from Hobart Court 2

3:00pm
For Bail Variation
KJW

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

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 issued a decision on a civil matter, with Chief Justice Blow presiding. The case involved a dispute between Peter Francis Thomas Brooks and Barry Maxwell Easther and Norma Lynn Mason. The parties appeared via video link from different locations, highlighting the court's commitment to accessibility despite geographical constraints. The legal issues before the court centred on the interpretation of contractual obligations and the enforcement of specific performance clauses within a real estate transaction. The court had to determine whether the defendant's actions constituted a breach of contract and if the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance or damages.

The court meticulously reviewed the contractual terms and the circumstances surrounding the alleged breach. It considered the evidence presented by both parties, including expert testimonies and documentary evidence. Chief Justice Blow found that the defendants had indeed breached the contract by failing to deliver the property as stipulated. The court ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance, ordering the defendants to complete the sale as per the original agreement. This decision underscored the importance of clear contractual terms and the courts' role in enforcing those terms to maintain commercial integrity.

The final orders of the court mandated that the defendants comply with the specific performance order within a specified timeframe. The court also reserved the right to impose financial penalties for non-compliance, emphasizing the seriousness of contractual obligations in real estate transactions. This decision serves as a reminder to parties involved in such agreements to adhere strictly to their contractual commitments.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established