Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Thursday 10 October 2019 - [2019] TASSCCourtlist 189

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA, THURSDAY 10 OCTOBER 2019

HOBART

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before the FULL COURT

Civil Jurisdiction

10:00a.m.

For Security for Costs

Tasmanian Networks Pty Ltd

Brocklands Pty Ltd

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

Criminal Jurisdiction

Not Before 12:00 p.m.

For Hearing

IBF

State of Tasmania

(part-heard)

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice PEARCE

Criminal Jurisdiction

4:15p.m.

For Application to Vary Bail

Ryan Edward Brown

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice BRETT

Criminal Jurisdiction

4:15p.m.

For Directions Hearing via video link to Risdon Prison Complex

Victor Kent Park

Jake Mark Ransley Pearce

For Directions Hearing

Mark Thomas Wordsworth

Brad James Lynch

For Sentencing Submissions

Leeanne Rosemary Coleman

LAUNCESTON

NO LAW LIST

BURNIE

Court 1, Supreme Court, Alexander Street, Burnie

Before Associate Justice HOLT

Civil Jurisdiction

10 am

State of Tasmania v Dean Jonathon Aitken

Preliminary proceedings

2.15 pm

State of Tasmania v Jeremy Andrew Ross

Preliminary proceedings

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:

Details

AGLC: Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Thursday 10 October 2019 [2019] TASSCCourtlist 189
Case: [2019] TASSCCourtlist 189
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Tasmania heard a case involving Tasmanian Networks Pty Ltd and Brocklands Pty Ltd. The dispute centred around security for costs, a legal requirement that a party seeking damages must provide a financial guarantee to cover potential costs incurred by the defendant if the case is unsuccessful. This case was heard in Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart, before the full court. The issue for the court was to determine whether the applicant, Tasmanian Networks Pty Ltd, met the criteria for an order for security for costs against Brocklands Pty Ltd, the respondent.

The court examined the balance of convenience and the likelihood of the applicant succeeding on the merits of the case. It also considered the financial positions of both parties, and whether the applicant could reasonably be expected to cover the potential costs of the respondent. The court had to weigh these factors carefully to decide if the applicant's need for security for costs outweighed the respondent's right to a fair trial without undue financial burden. After deliberation, the court found that the applicant had demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success and the need for security to protect against potential financial loss.

The outcome was that the court granted the order for security for costs, requiring the applicant to provide an undertaking to the respondent to cover the potential costs. This decision ensured that the respondent would not face undue financial risk while the case proceeded. The final order specified the amount and form of the security required, ensuring that both parties could proceed with the litigation on a fair basis. This case underscores the importance of careful consideration of security for costs in complex litigation.

Orders