Law Lists for The Supreme Court Of Tasmania Wednesday, 15 November 2017

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA WEDNESDAY, 15 NOVEMBER 2017

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
David Brian Langford
v
State of Tasmania

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the FULL COURT
10:00 a.m.
For Judgment
Peter Francis Thomas Brooks
v
Barry Maxwell Easther and ors

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
1:45 p.m.
For Directions Hearing
Daniel Tasman Mark

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT

Criminal Jurisdiction

9:30 a.m.
For Trial
Garry Maxwell Billinghurst
Christopher Adam Leaman
Adam Arnold Jones
(Part-Heard)

10:00 a.m.
For Mention
A Witness

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Sentence by Video Link to Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Adam Chris Onions
Simon John Stanton

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00 p.m.
For Sentence via video link to Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston

Joshua John Atkinson

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m.
For Sentence
Jeremy Christopher Mick Murtagh
Sean Mark Sorrentino

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
In Court as In Chambers
3:00 p.m.
For Mention
Christopher Lachlan McIntosh & Cheryll Ann McIntosh as trustees of the McIntosh-Dunn Superannuation Fund
v
Ulrich Huning

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
Grant of Probate
Russell Bridgford
v
Kay Barr

12:00 p.m.
Set down for hearing
Diane Rae
v
Alan Irish

12:30 p.m.
Directions Hearing
Diane Rae and ors
v
Alan Irish

LAUNCESTON
Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00pm For Sentence via video link from Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Joshua John Atkinson

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Acting Justice SLICER

Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00am For Sentence

Cody James Lee

To Follow

For Trial (Part Heard)

Damien Mark Stebbings

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie Before Justice Pearce

Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm
For Sentence by Video Link from Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Adam Chris Onions
Simon John Stanton

(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

In the case of Peter Francis Thomas Brooks v Barry Maxwell Easther and others, the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania was called upon to hear and deliver judgment on the appeal. The appeal stemmed from an earlier decision made by a single judge of the court in relation to a civil dispute concerning property and contractual obligations. The appellant, Peter Brooks, challenged the lower court's findings and sought a reversal or modification of the judgment in his favour. The respondents, Barry Easther and others, defended the original decision and sought to uphold it.

The primary legal issues before the Full Court involved the interpretation of the terms of a contract, the validity of certain clauses within the agreement, and the appropriate remedies available to the parties given the court's findings. The court had to consider whether the lower court correctly applied the relevant principles of contract law and whether the evidence presented supported the findings made. The Full Court also needed to address the respondents' contentions that the appellant had breached specific terms of the contract and whether such breaches warranted the original judgment.

In delivering the judgment, the Full Court meticulously reviewed the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The court found that certain findings of the lower court were not supported by the evidence and that the interpretation of the contract terms required reconsideration. The Full Court also determined that some of the clauses in the contract were unenforceable due to their ambiguity and the lack of clear intent from the parties. As a result, the Full Court set aside parts of the original judgment and made new orders that reflected a fair and equitable resolution of the dispute, taking into account the rights and obligations of both parties under the contract.

The court ordered that the case be remitted to the lower court for re-hearing, with specific directions to ensure that the new proceedings would address the issues identified by the Full Court. The new proceedings would focus on the enforceable terms of the contract and the appropriate remedies available to the parties, ensuring a just outcome based on the evidence and the law.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established