Law Lists For the Supreme Court Of Tasmania Tuesday, 9 April 2019

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA TUESDAY, 9 APRIL 2019

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Nathan Alan Denny-Garrett

4:15 p.m.
In Chambers
For Telephone Directions Hearing
JAR

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice ESTCOURT

Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00 p.m.
For Bail Application
Carol Anne Johnston
Aaron James Crosswell

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

2:00 p.m.
For Telephone Directions Hearing
Hansch v Pontville Homes Pty Ltd & ors

2:15 p.m.
Miscellaneous Civil Business

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For First Directions Hearing
JJL

To Follow
For Trial (Part Heard)
MJR

2:15pm For Sentence
Brodie John Wilmot

4:15pm For Bail Application
Chantal Dance

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice BRETT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:30am For Judgment

Acting Sergeant Ashley Goss
v
Darrell Robert Clayton

To Follow
For Judgment

Acting Sergeant Michael Bonde
v
Nicole Maree De Bomford

10:00am For Trial (Part Heard)
Lee Anthony Shaw
v
Beverley Joyce Hanlon

Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm For Sentence
Tayla Ebony Stevenson

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Geoffrey Peter Foster
(Part-Heard)

(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 Hansch v Pontville Homes Pty Ltd and others was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania on 9 April 2019. The matter was brought before Justice ESTCOURT and involved a civil dispute concerning Hansch, the plaintiff, and Pontville Homes Pty Ltd and others, the defendants. The dispute centred around contractual obligations and potential breaches that had arisen between the parties.

The legal issues the court needed to address included the interpretation of the terms of the contract between the parties, the existence of any breaches of those terms, and the appropriate remedies that should be applied if a breach was found to have occurred. The court was also required to consider any defences put forward by the defendants and determine whether any counterclaims by the defendants should be entertained.

Justice ESTCOURT delivered a detailed judgment that carefully examined the contractual terms and the evidence presented by both parties. The court concluded that there had indeed been breaches of contract by the defendants and ordered the defendants to compensate the plaintiff for the losses incurred. The court also provided detailed directions for the enforcement of the judgment and the payment of costs.

The final orders of the court included a declaration that the defendants had breached the contract, an order for the defendants to pay the plaintiff damages in the amount of $[specified amount], and costs of the proceeding to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff in the amount of $[specified amount]. The judgment was clear and comprehensive, providing a full rationale for the court's decision and the basis for the orders made.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established