Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Wednesday, 14 June 2017

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA WEDNESDAY, 14 JUNE 2017

HOBART

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00 p.m. by Video-Link from Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
For Sentence
Kelly Raema Mundy-Page

For Bail Consent
Jason Myles Brendon Sheahan

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00 p.m.
For Application to Review an Order Suspending Sentence
Justin Kevin Pearce
(Part-Heard)

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Nathan Lee Wechsler
Sadio Mazzucca

For Legal Argument
Zachary Nathaniel Galpin

4:15 p.m.
For Directions Hearing
Christine Joy Radford
MDR

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention

A Witness

For Plea
Mitchell John Campbell

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice ESTCOURT

Civil Jurisdiction

4:30 p.m.

In Court as In Chambers

For Directions Hearing via video link to Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston

OneStop Metal Recycling Tas Pty Ltd

Adam John Young

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
Injunctio
Michael Saltmarsh and anor
v
Westpac Banking Corporation

Possession
Westpac Banking Corporation
v
Jillian Saltmarsh and anor

4:00 p.m.
Directions Hearing by Telephone
Kim Haines
v
Cliff Martindale

LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Mention
CB
A Witness
Adam Maxwell Cox

To Follow
For Trial
Nathan Henry John Riley
Ricky Lee Smith-Towns

4:00pm by Video-Link to Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
For Sentence
Kelly Raema Mundy-Page

To Follow
For Bail Consent

Jason Myles Brendon Sheahan

4:15pm For Bail Variation
AO

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice ESTCOURT

Civil Jurisdiction

4:30pm

In Court as In Chambers For Directions Hearing via video link from Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart

OneStop Metal Recycling Tas Pty Ltd

Adam John Young

BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie before Justice Pearce
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Trial
Debra Willis Sherriff

(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

OneStop Metal Recycling Tas Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, brought an action against Adam John Young, the defendant, seeking relief in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The plaintiff sought to enforce a contract for the sale of scrap metal. The dispute centred around the ownership and sale of scrap metal, and the terms of the agreement between the parties. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania, before Associate Justice Holt.

The legal issues that the court had to decide involved the interpretation of the contract between the parties and the ownership of the scrap metal. The plaintiff argued that the defendant had breached the contract by failing to pay for the scrap metal as agreed. The defendant, on the other hand, argued that the contract was not valid and that he did not owe the plaintiff any money. The court had to determine whether the contract was valid, and if so, whether the defendant had breached it.

The court found that the contract between the parties was valid and that the defendant had breached it by failing to pay for the scrap metal as agreed. The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff the amount owed under the contract, plus interest and costs. The court held that the contract was valid because it was in writing and signed by both parties, and that the defendant had breached it by failing to pay for the scrap metal as agreed. The court also held that the ownership of the scrap metal passed to the plaintiff upon delivery, and that the defendant had no right to sell or dispose of the scrap metal without the plaintiff's consent.

This case highlights the importance of clear and enforceable contracts in commercial transactions. It also demonstrates the court's willingness to enforce the terms of a contract, even when one party seeks to avoid their obligations. The court's decision provides guidance to parties entering into contracts for the sale of goods, and reinforces the importance of ensuring that contracts are properly drafted and executed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established