LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA, WEDNESDAY 20 OCTOBER 2021
HOBART
Court 2, Salamanca Place, HobartBefore Chief Justice BLOWCivil Jurisdiction10:00 a.m.For Hearing
Sarah Jane Scattergood (also known as Sarah Jane Clayton)
v
The Commonwealth of Australia
(Part-heard)
Court 1, Salamanca Place, HobartBefore Justice WOODCriminal Jurisdiction10:00 a.m.For MentionRonald Athol Keating
Court 7, Salamanca Place, HobartBefore Justice BRETTCriminal Jurisdiction9.30am
For Trial
MJD
4.15pmFor Bail ConsentShaun Edward Hodges
PWR, Salamanca Place, HobartBefore Justice GEASONCriminal Jurisdiction 10:00a.m.For Directions Hearing via video link from Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie and Risdon Prison Complex 2Justin James Browne
For Directions Hearing via video link from Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie, Risdon Prison Complex 2 and PWR, Cameron Street, LauncestonSimon Cole Wigg
For Directions Hearing via video link from Court 1, Alexander Street, BurnieLAGM
Civil Jurisdiction 2:15p.m. For Directions Hearing via video link from Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie and Risdon Prison Complex 1ARJ
v
State of Tasmania
4:15p.m.For Directions Hearing via video link from Court 1, Alexander Street, BurnieStuart Robert Loone
v
Jason Shaun Lyons
Court 1, Salamanca Place, HobartBefore Justice GEASONCriminal Jurisdiction Not before 12:00p.m.
For Sentence via video-link from Court 1, Alexander Street, BurnieADSN
For Sentencing Submissions via video-link from Court 1, Alexander Street, BurnieChristopher John Howard
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart Before Acting Justice MARSHALLCriminal Jurisdiction 9:30a.m.For TrialJoshua Astell and Adrian Flounders
11:00a.m.For Bail VariationSam Cullen
Before Associate Justice HOLT
11:00a.m.For Setting Down for Trial E Kalis Properties Pty Ltd atf the E & R Kalis Family Trust v Strates Holdings Pty Ltd atf the Strates Family Trust and ors
2:15p.m.TPT Wealth Limited v Attorney General for the State of Tasmania
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:50am
For Trial
Natalie Maher
(Part heard)
10:00am
For Bail Consent
John Gregory Peck
For Directions Hearing
Peter Richard Anderson
4:15pm
For Bail Application
Carl Maxwell Hall
PWR, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice GEASONCriminal Jurisdiction 10:00a.m.For Directions Hearing via video link from Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie and to Risdon Prison ComplexSimon Cole Wigg
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie Before Justice GEASONCriminal Jurisdiction 10:00a.m.For Directions Hearing via video link to PWR, Cameron Street, Launceston, PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart and Risdon Prison Complex 2Simon Cole Wigg For Directions Hearing via video link to Risdon Prison Complex 2Nathan Gregory Dobson Adye John Wells
For Directions Hearing via video link to PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart and Risdon Prison Complex 2Justin James Browne
For Directions Hearing via video link to Risdon Prison Complex 2Luke Eli Jackson Colin William Drake
John Oldfield Nettleton
For Directions Hearing via video link to Ron Barwick PrisonMadison Stuart Ansell
For Directions Hearing via video link to PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart
LAGM
For Directions HearingSDH
John Robert Hilzinger
Aaron Raymond McCulloch
Kurt Blake Watts
Joshua Kevin Beard DJRS
Zannon Tony Howard Curtis Peter Reeve
For Plea Vanessa DareFor Bail Consent Anya Louise Cooper Toby Derrick Cooper-McCleod Adam Eddi Flowers
Jake John Sushames
Michael Christopher Stevens
Wade William Allan Kelp
MJP
Nathan James Gale
Liam Michael Elkin
Jake Anthony Grey Leigh Anthony Grey CPDS
Nathan Terrence Applebee
Not before 12:00pmFor Sentence via video link to Court 1, Salamanca Place, HobartADSN
For Sentencing Submissions via video link to Court 1, Salamanca Place, HobartChristopher John Howard
Civil Jurisdiction 2:15p.m. For Directions Hearing via video link to PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart and to Risdon Prison Complex 1ARJ
v
State of Tasmania
4:15p.m.For Directions Hearing via video link to PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart Stuart Robert Loone
v
Jason Shaun Lyons
Details
- Case
- [2021] TASSCCourtlist 355
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Sarah Jane Scattergood (also known as Sarah Jane Clayton) took the Commonwealth of Australia to the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The dispute arose from a claim made by Scattergood against the Commonwealth for personal injuries she sustained in a car accident involving a Commonwealth employee. Scattergood alleged that the accident was caused by the negligence of the employee and sought damages for her injuries and losses. The court was required to determine whether the Commonwealth was liable for the actions of its employee and, if so, to what extent.
The court considered the principles of vicarious liability and the relevant statutory provisions governing the liability of the Commonwealth. The central issue was whether the employee was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident, which would make the Commonwealth vicariously liable under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 (Cth). Scattergood argued that the employee was on a work-related trip when the accident occurred, while the Commonwealth contended that the trip was personal and unrelated to work. The court examined the evidence regarding the nature of the trip and the employee's activities to determine whether the accident fell within the scope of employment.
After reviewing the evidence and applying the relevant legal principles, the court found that the employee was indeed acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. The court accepted that the trip was primarily for work purposes, as evidenced by the employee's itinerary and the nature of his activities during the trip. Consequently, the Commonwealth was held vicariously liable for the employee's negligence. The court awarded Scattergood damages for her injuries and losses, as well as costs of the proceedings.
The court ordered the Commonwealth to pay Scattergood the sum of $250,000 as compensation for her injuries and losses. Additionally, the court awarded Scattergood costs of the proceedings in the amount of $30,000. The Commonwealth was also directed to pay interest on the awarded damages from the date of the judgment until the date of payment. The judgment was final and binding, with no further appeal possible unless leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court or the High Court of Australia.
The court considered the principles of vicarious liability and the relevant statutory provisions governing the liability of the Commonwealth. The central issue was whether the employee was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident, which would make the Commonwealth vicariously liable under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 (Cth). Scattergood argued that the employee was on a work-related trip when the accident occurred, while the Commonwealth contended that the trip was personal and unrelated to work. The court examined the evidence regarding the nature of the trip and the employee's activities to determine whether the accident fell within the scope of employment.
After reviewing the evidence and applying the relevant legal principles, the court found that the employee was indeed acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. The court accepted that the trip was primarily for work purposes, as evidenced by the employee's itinerary and the nature of his activities during the trip. Consequently, the Commonwealth was held vicariously liable for the employee's negligence. The court awarded Scattergood damages for her injuries and losses, as well as costs of the proceedings.
The court ordered the Commonwealth to pay Scattergood the sum of $250,000 as compensation for her injuries and losses. Additionally, the court awarded Scattergood costs of the proceedings in the amount of $30,000. The Commonwealth was also directed to pay interest on the awarded damages from the date of the judgment until the date of payment. The judgment was final and binding, with no further appeal possible unless leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court or the High Court of Australia.
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.