Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Tuesday, 27 June 2017

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA TUESDAY, 27 JUNE 2017

HOBART

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Civil Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
In Court as In Chambers
For Decision
Dean Flanagan
v
Claremont Village Shopping Centre & Ors

Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Hendrik Dikkenberg

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Directions Hearing
Jamie Gregory McCrossen
v
State of Tasmania

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Trent Aaron Gordon

4:15 p.m.
For Directions Hearing
Shadi Farhat
v
The State of Tasmania

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Facts and Sentence
Lee-Anne Marie Levett

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
Miscellaneous Civil Business

LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00am For Mention
A Witness

To Follow
For Trial (Part-Heard)
Peter Michael Kopper

2:15pm For Mention
Duayne Geoffrey Venn

BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie before Justice Pearce
Criminal Jurisdiction
For Trial (Part-Heard)
Christopher Charles Bond

(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 case of Dean Flanagan v Claremont Village Shopping Centre & Ors was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The plaintiff, Dean Flanagan, brought a claim against the defendants, Claremont Village Shopping Centre and others, regarding an incident that occurred on the premises of the shopping centre. The nature of the dispute involved alleged negligence and breach of duty by the defendants, leading to injuries sustained by Flanagan. The case was presided over by Justice Wood and was part of the civil jurisdiction, scheduled for hearing on Tuesday, 27 June 2017.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the defendants owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and, if so, whether this duty was breached, resulting in the plaintiff's injuries. Additionally, the court needed to determine the extent of damages, if any, that the defendants should compensate for. The case hinged on the interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions concerning occupier's liability and the principles of negligence law.

Justice Wood, in delivering the judgment, meticulously examined the evidence presented and the applicable legal standards. The court found that the defendants did owe a duty of care to the plaintiff. It was determined that this duty was indeed breached, as the defendants failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of the premises. Consequently, the court held the defendants liable for the injuries sustained by Flanagan. The court awarded damages to the plaintiff, reflecting the severity of the injuries and the extent of the defendants' negligence.

The final orders of the court mandated that the defendants compensate the plaintiff for the damages incurred, with specific amounts detailed in the judgment. The defendants were also instructed to take corrective measures to prevent similar incidents in the future. This decision underscores the importance of maintaining safe premises and the legal obligations of those in control of such spaces.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established