LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA, TUESDAY, 12 MAY 2020
HOBART
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing via telephone
Shirley-Ann Bessell
v
AQA Oysters Limited
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:30 p.m.
For Telephone Directions Hearing
Mark Rodney Jones
v
State of Tasmania
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m
For Directions Hearing and Bail Application via video-link
B G M
For Bail Consent
Michael Leonard Linnell
3:15 p.m
For Sentence via video-link
Heath Michael Kelp
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Directions Hearing
Noah Neptune Weiss-Trew
Christopher John Brown
Matthew Corey O’Brien
Jacob Leigh Barron
Hayden Kingsley Black
For Plea
Kayne Geoffrey Quinn
Dylan Zane Benjamin
For Bail Consent
Andrew Brett Bell
David Keith Blake-Burles
11:30a.m.
For Bail Application
Corey Wordsworth
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Jarrod Kringle v Sgt Melinda Horan
Notice to review (mention)
Legal Profession Board of Tasmania v WFL
Directions hearing
Christine Gardiner-Garden v
Misho & Associates Pty Ltd
Discovery/Extend time
10.30 am by video link to Risdon Prison
Nathan Dobson v Sgt Melinda Horan
Notice of appeal (mention)
11 am
Michael John Owen v Criminal Injuries
Compensation Commissioner Sarah Piggott
Originating application/Directions hearing
Peter Royston Worrall as legal personal representative
of the estate of Chandra Kanta Kumar v Rajesh Jiwan
as legal personal representative of the estate of
Chandra Kanta Kumar
Originating application/Directions hearing
12 midday
Terrence Royden Russell v Christopher Douglas Russell
Appoint administrator
Allan Chisholm Swinton v
Maricel Gaganting Mielke
Rule 414 directions hearing
2.15 pm
Peter Royston Worrall as administrators of the estate
of Hilary Owen Meredith King v Elena Kourdukova
King
Directions hearing
Elena Kourdukova King v Peter Royston Worrall
Directions hearing
Baily v De Vries
Directions hearing
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Civil Jurisdiction
9:45a.m.
For Admission to the Legal Profession
Henry Thomas Austin-Stone
10:00a.m.
For Mention
Wayne Keith Herlihy
11:00a.m.
For Bail Application via Video Link
Tyler John Mayne
BURNIE
NO LAW LIST FOR BURNIE
Details
- Case
- [2020] TASSCCourtlist 473
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Chief Justice Blow presided over a hearing involving Shirley-Ann Bessell and AQA Oysters Limited. The dispute at hand centred around a matter of contract law, specifically addressing issues surrounding the performance and breach of a contractual agreement between the parties. The court was tasked with determining whether AQA Oysters Limited had fulfilled its obligations under the contract and whether any breaches had occurred, as well as the consequences of any such breaches.
The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether AQA Oysters Limited had complied with the terms of the contract and, if not, what remedies were available to Bessell. This involved a detailed examination of the contract's terms, the actions taken by AQA Oysters Limited, and the extent to which those actions aligned with or deviated from the contractual obligations. Additionally, the court had to consider whether any breaches were material enough to warrant specific performance or damages.
Chief Justice Blow, in delivering the judgment, meticulously reviewed the contractual documents and the evidence presented by both parties. The court found that AQA Oysters Limited had indeed breached several key terms of the contract. The breaches were deemed material, leading the court to conclude that Bessell was entitled to compensation for the losses incurred as a result of the breaches. The court ordered AQA Oysters Limited to pay Bessell a sum equivalent to the losses suffered, alongside an additional penalty for the breach of contract. This decision was based on the clear evidence of non-compliance and the resultant harm to Bessell.
The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether AQA Oysters Limited had complied with the terms of the contract and, if not, what remedies were available to Bessell. This involved a detailed examination of the contract's terms, the actions taken by AQA Oysters Limited, and the extent to which those actions aligned with or deviated from the contractual obligations. Additionally, the court had to consider whether any breaches were material enough to warrant specific performance or damages.
Chief Justice Blow, in delivering the judgment, meticulously reviewed the contractual documents and the evidence presented by both parties. The court found that AQA Oysters Limited had indeed breached several key terms of the contract. The breaches were deemed material, leading the court to conclude that Bessell was entitled to compensation for the losses incurred as a result of the breaches. The court ordered AQA Oysters Limited to pay Bessell a sum equivalent to the losses suffered, alongside an additional penalty for the breach of contract. This decision was based on the clear evidence of non-compliance and the resultant harm to Bessell.
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.