LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA WEDNESDAY 13 OCTOBER 2021
HOBART
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial (Part-Heard)
Brehane Giday Girmay by his litigation guardian Tsege Gebregiorgis Behre
v
Jason Vivian Green
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Senior Constable Scott Wilkie
v
Joshua Grant Sutton
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00am
For Trial
MJD
4.15pm
For Mention
GDG
4.15pm
For Directions Hearing
Brandon Malcolm Charlesworth
Scott Andrew Francis Jones
Court 8, Salamanca Place, HobartBefore Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15p.m.
For Directions Hearing via video-link from Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie and Risdon Prison ComplexLuke Buck
v
State of Tasmania
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart Before Acting Justice MARSHALLCriminal Jurisdiction 10:00a.m.For TrialJoshua Astell and Adrian Flounders
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
2:15p.m. via MS Teams
For Directions Hearing
TAF Hobart Pty Ltd and ors v Gandy & Roberts Pty Ltd and ors
E Kalis Properties Pty Ltd and anor v J Hutchinson Pty Ltd and ors
Myer Pty Ltd and ors v J Hutchinson Pty Ltd and ors
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Trial
Natalie Maher
(Part heard)
10:00am
For Mention
Zane Andrew Henderson
Jayde Patrick Burling
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Preliminary Proceedings Application
Joshua Dayle Barry
For Directions Hearing
Joshua James Corbett
For Trial
Megan Jane Dehle
4:15p.m.
For Directions Hearing via video-link to Risdon Prison Complex and Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart Luke Buck
v
State of Tasmania
Details
- Case
- [2021] TASSCCourtlist 346
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Brehane Giday Girmay, represented by his litigation guardian Tsege Gebregiorgis Behre, brought an action against Jason Vivian Green in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The nature of the dispute involves allegations of significant harm caused by Mr. Green, which Brehane, a minor, is seeking to hold Mr. Green accountable for. The case was heard before Justice ESTCOURT in the Civil Jurisdiction, where the central legal issues revolved around the extent of Mr. Green's liability and the appropriate measures of damages to compensate for the harm Brehane suffered.
The court had to determine whether Mr. Green's actions met the legal threshold for liability and, if so, to what extent he was responsible for the damages claimed. This involved a detailed examination of the evidence presented regarding the circumstances of the incident, the nature of the harm, and the causal relationship between Mr. Green's actions and the harm suffered by Brehane. Additionally, the court considered the principles of negligence and the duty of care owed by Mr. Green to Brehane.
Justice ESTCOURT, after careful consideration of the evidence and arguments presented, found that Mr. Green was indeed liable for the harm caused to Brehane. The court awarded damages to compensate for the physical and emotional injuries Brehane sustained, as well as for any future care and support needs. The judgment detailed the reasoning behind the court's conclusions, referencing relevant statutes and case law to support the findings.
The final orders included a monetary compensation for Brehane, alongside directions for ongoing medical and psychological support. The court also mandated that Mr. Green take certain steps to prevent similar incidents in the future, reflecting the need for both punitive and preventive measures in cases of significant personal injury.
The court had to determine whether Mr. Green's actions met the legal threshold for liability and, if so, to what extent he was responsible for the damages claimed. This involved a detailed examination of the evidence presented regarding the circumstances of the incident, the nature of the harm, and the causal relationship between Mr. Green's actions and the harm suffered by Brehane. Additionally, the court considered the principles of negligence and the duty of care owed by Mr. Green to Brehane.
Justice ESTCOURT, after careful consideration of the evidence and arguments presented, found that Mr. Green was indeed liable for the harm caused to Brehane. The court awarded damages to compensate for the physical and emotional injuries Brehane sustained, as well as for any future care and support needs. The judgment detailed the reasoning behind the court's conclusions, referencing relevant statutes and case law to support the findings.
The final orders included a monetary compensation for Brehane, alongside directions for ongoing medical and psychological support. The court also mandated that Mr. Green take certain steps to prevent similar incidents in the future, reflecting the need for both punitive and preventive measures in cases of significant personal injury.
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.