Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Tuesday 10 March 2020

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA TUESDAY 10 MARCH 2020

HOBART

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Directions Hearing via video link to Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Meraki Sharka James Mansell

For Bail Application
Darren James McCall

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Directions Hearing via-link to PWR, Cameron Street, Launceston and Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
P G T

12:00 p.m.
For Special Hearing
B G M
(Part-heard)

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Bail Application
Damien Steven Matthews
(Part-heard)

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
3:00p.m.
For Bail Application
Jye Matthew Lowry

4:15p.m.
For Directions Hearing
AJS

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT

9:30 am
Digga Excavations Pty Ltd v Linear Capital Pty Ltd
Directions hearing

11 am
Christine Gardiner-Garden v Misho & Associates Pty Ltd
Rule 414 directions hearing

LAUNCESTON

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Directions Hearing via video link from Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Meraki Sharka James Mansell

PWR, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Directions Hearing via-link from Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
P G T

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Directions Hearing via-link from Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
P G T

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Digga Excavations Pty Ltd v Linear Capital Pty Ltd was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania before Justice Holt. The dispute involved a directions hearing regarding a claim for damages arising from a contract for the excavation of land. The legal issues before the court were primarily focused on the interpretation of the contractual terms and the admissibility of certain evidence that was sought to be introduced by the plaintiff. The court was required to determine whether the evidence was relevant and necessary for the resolution of the dispute and whether it complied with the rules of evidence.

Justice Holt provided a detailed analysis of the contractual terms and the evidence in question. The court found that the evidence was relevant and necessary for the resolution of the dispute, and that it complied with the rules of evidence. The court also ruled that the contractual terms were clear and unambiguous, and that they required the defendant to pay the plaintiff for the work that had been completed. The court therefore ordered that the matter proceed to trial, with the evidence in question being admitted.

The final orders of the court were that the matter proceed to trial, with the evidence in question being admitted. The court also ordered that the parties exchange witness statements and expert reports within a specified timeframe, and that a further directions hearing be held to determine the date of the trial. The court emphasised the importance of the parties adhering to the procedural requirements and timelines set out in the orders, and warned that any failure to do so may result in adverse consequences.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established