LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA TUESDAY, 12 OCTOBER 2021
HOBART
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
11.00a.m.
For Trial
Brehane Giday Girmay by his litigation guardian Tsege Gebregiorgis Behre
v
Jason Vivian Green
4.15p.m.
For Directions Hearing
Jacqueline Louise King
v
Neil Patrick Bigg as personal representative of the estate of the late Stephen James Atkinson and Ors
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00a.m.
For Trial
MJD
4.15p.m.
For Directions Hearing via video-link to Risdon Prison Complex
Dean Phillip Braslin
4.15p.m.
For Directions Hearing
Scott Andrew Marriott
Patrick Simon Bailey
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice MARSHALL
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:00a.m.
For Bail Application
Nathan Baden Roy Whelan
10:00a.m.
For Mention
Adam John Munnings
Casey Nicholas Booth
For Directions Hearing
Jack Timothy Soden
Jonathon Henry Holmes
Tyler Anythony James Causon
For Trial
Joshua Astell and Adrian Flounders
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9.30a.m.
For Setting Down for Hearing
TPT Wealth Limited v Attorney General for the State of Tasmania
For Referral to Mediation
Jeremy Jackson v Louise Elizabeth Schmidt
11.00a.m.
For Directions Hearing
Eamon Iain Hibberd v Simon Preshaw
For Directions Hearing
Eamon Iain Hibberd v Cathy Louise Moore
12.00p.m.
For Directions Hearing
Louise Anne McCarthy v Ian Gordon Leighton as executor of the estate of Garth McDonald Leighton
2.15p.m. via MS Teams
For Directions Hearing
The State of Tasmania v Duncan Cameron McPherson
For R416 Directions Hearing
Shane Geoffrey Wilson and anor v Inez Malita Bryan and ors
For Pre-Trial Conference
Christine Caudwell and anor v Stephen Wilkinson and ors
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Trial
Natalie Maher
4:15p.m.
For Breach Application via video-link to Conference Room, Alexander Street, Burnie
Jamie Stephen Sexton
BURNIE
Conference Room, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15p.m.
For Breach Application via video-link to Court 1, Cameron Street, Burnie
Jamie Stephen Sexton
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Trial
Megan Jane Dehle
Details
- Case
- [2021] TASSCCourtlist 345
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Brehane Giday Girmay, through his litigation guardian Tsege Gebregiorgis Behre, has filed a civil claim against Jason Vivian Green. The nature of the dispute pertains to a personal injury claim, where Brehane alleges that Jason's negligence led to significant harm. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania, before Chief Justice Blow.
The primary legal issues before the court involved determining liability and the extent of damages. The court had to assess whether Jason's actions breached a duty of care owed to Brehane and, if so, whether this breach directly caused the injuries claimed. Furthermore, the court had to evaluate the appropriate measure of damages, if any, to be awarded to Brehane.
In reaching its decision, the court meticulously examined the evidence presented by both parties, including expert testimonies and medical reports. It found that Jason did indeed breach the duty of care owed to Brehane, as his actions were negligent and directly led to the injuries. The court then quantified the damages, considering the extent of the harm, medical costs, and impact on Brehane's life. Consequently, the court awarded Brehane a significant sum in damages, reflecting the severity of his injuries and the long-term impact on his life.
The final orders mandated Jason to compensate Brehane for the damages awarded, along with any applicable interest and legal costs. The judgment underscores the importance of maintaining a duty of care and the serious repercussions of neglecting such responsibilities.
The primary legal issues before the court involved determining liability and the extent of damages. The court had to assess whether Jason's actions breached a duty of care owed to Brehane and, if so, whether this breach directly caused the injuries claimed. Furthermore, the court had to evaluate the appropriate measure of damages, if any, to be awarded to Brehane.
In reaching its decision, the court meticulously examined the evidence presented by both parties, including expert testimonies and medical reports. It found that Jason did indeed breach the duty of care owed to Brehane, as his actions were negligent and directly led to the injuries. The court then quantified the damages, considering the extent of the harm, medical costs, and impact on Brehane's life. Consequently, the court awarded Brehane a significant sum in damages, reflecting the severity of his injuries and the long-term impact on his life.
The final orders mandated Jason to compensate Brehane for the damages awarded, along with any applicable interest and legal costs. The judgment underscores the importance of maintaining a duty of care and the serious repercussions of neglecting such responsibilities.
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.