Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Wednesday, 2 October 2019 Summary

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA, WEDNESDAY, 2 OCTOBER 2019

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Bradley Scott Purkiss
Margaret Anne Otto
(part-heard)

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15p.m.
For Plea
Brett Langdon Wescombe

Judges’ Chambers, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9.30 am
Brennan Loch Reeves as trustees for the B & I Reeves Family Trust
v Medesse Pty Ltd
Extend time to file affidavits and written submissions (mention by telephone)

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
10 am
Michael John Coleman v David Arthur Cuthbertson
Strike-out further amended statement of claim

10 am
Kraig Anthony Dann v Port Sorell Bowls Club Inc
Application to vacate the trial date

LAUNCESTON

NO LAW LIST FOR LAUNCESTON

BURNIE

NO LAW LIST FOR BURNIE

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:

Details

AGLC: Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Wednesday, 2 October 2019 [2019] TASSCCourtlist 185
Case: [2019] TASSCCourtlist 185
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Tasmania heard a case involving a dispute between Brennan Loch Reeves as trustees for the B & I Reeves Family Trust and Medesse Pty Ltd. The parties appeared before Justice Brett for an application to extend the time to file affidavits and written submissions. The primary issue before the court was whether the trustees were entitled to an extension of time to file the required documentation. The second case involved a claim by Michael John Coleman against David Arthur Cuthbertson, where the court was required to decide whether to strike out the further amended statement of claim filed by the plaintiff. The court needed to consider whether the amended statement of claim contained any viable cause of action that could proceed to trial.

Justice Brett heard submissions from both parties and considered the circumstances surrounding the delay in filing the affidavits and written submissions. The court acknowledged the trustees' explanation for the delay, including difficulties in obtaining necessary information and the complexity of the case. The court found that the trustees had made a reasonable effort to meet the deadlines and granted an extension of time to allow the trustees to complete their submissions. In the second case, the court considered the grounds for striking out the amended statement of claim. The court found that the amended statement of claim did not present a viable cause of action and ordered the claim to be struck out. The court noted that the plaintiff had failed to address the deficiencies identified in previous orders and that further amendments would be futile.

The court's orders included an extension of time for the trustees to file affidavits and written submissions in the first case and a striking out of the further amended statement of claim in the second case. These decisions reflect the court's approach to managing the procedural aspects of litigation and ensuring that cases proceed in an efficient and just manner.

Orders