LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA WEDNESDAY, 23 JUNE 2021
HOBART
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart Before Chief Justice BLOW Civil Jurisdiction 11:00a.m.For Hearing Frayne Higgins
v
Lucy Orchard
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart Before the FULL COURT Civil Jurisdiction4:15p.m.For Judgment The Honourable Peter Gutwein
v
Tasmanian Industrial Commission
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart Before Chief Justice BLOW Civil Jurisdiction
4:15p.m.For JudgmentBorg Manufacturing Pty Ltd
v
John Van’t Sant and anor
Court 1, Salamanca Place, HobartBefore Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m
For Backstop TrialJacob Anthony Burdon
For Trial
Anthony Stephen Butcher
(Part-Heard)
Court 8, Salamanca Place HobartBefore Justice BRETTCriminal Jurisdiction4:15pmFor Sentence via video link from Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie and to Court 2, Cameron Street, LauncestonIsaac Jess Hall
For Mention via video link from Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie and to Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston and Risdon Prison ComplexNathan Baden Roy WhelanCourt 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Civil Jurisdiction
2:15p.m.
For Hearing via video-link to Court 2,
Cameron Street, Launceston
Daniel Mark Bishop v Senior Sergeant Jason Jones and ors
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15p.m.
For Bail Consent
Matthew Lee Pearce
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9:30a.m. For Hearing via MS TeamsMoe Sultan v Aziz Gregory Melick and ors
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE Criminal Jurisdiction 10:00am For MentionGlenn William Barnard
For Trial Ruhua Liu
Shayne Michael Murphy
(part-heard)
Court 2, Cameron Street, LauncestonBefore Justice BRETTCriminal Jurisdiction4:15pmFor Sentence via video link from Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie and to Court 8, Salamanca Place HobartIsaac Jess Hall
For Mention via video link from Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie and to Court 8, Salamanca Place Hobart and Risdon Prison ComplexNathan Baden Roy Whelan
Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Civil Jurisdiction
2:15p.m.
For Hearing via video-link from
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Daniel Mark Bishop v Senior Sergeant Jason Jones and ors
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, BurnieBefore Justice BRETTCriminal Jurisdiction10:00amFor MentionJustin James Browne
Todd Michael Walker
For TrialThomas Leslie Rennison
4:15pmFor Bail VariationJason Savage
For Sentence via video link to Court 8, Salamanca Place Hobart and Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston Isaac Jess Hall
For Mention via video link to Court 8, Salamanca Place Hobart and Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston and Risdon Prison ComplexNathan Baden Roy Whelan
For Mention via video link to Risdon Prison ComplexFrancesco Antonio Ciampa
For PleaKaydon Poole
Details
- Case
- [2021] TASSCCourtlist 197
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Frayne Higgins versus Lucy Orchard was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The matter arose from a dispute concerning an alleged breach of contract by Lucy Orchard. The primary legal issue for the court to decide was whether there was a binding contract between the parties and if Lucy Orchard had breached its terms. The court also needed to determine the appropriate remedy if a breach was found.
In addressing the first issue, the court considered the evidence presented regarding the formation of the contract. It was established that there was a written agreement signed by both parties, which outlined the terms and conditions of the contract. The court then examined whether the elements of a contract, such as offer, acceptance, consideration, and intention to create legal relations, were present. After careful analysis, the court found that a binding contract did exist between the parties.
Turning to the second issue, the court assessed whether Lucy Orchard had breached the contract. The evidence showed that Lucy Orchard had failed to fulfil certain obligations under the contract. The court determined that there was a clear breach of contract by Lucy Orchard. In terms of remedy, the court awarded damages to Frayne Higgins for the losses suffered due to the breach.
The final orders of the court were that Lucy Orchard was liable for the breach of contract and must compensate Frayne Higgins for the damages incurred. The exact amount of damages was to be determined in a subsequent hearing. The court's decision provided clarity on the contractual obligations between the parties and ensured that the aggrieved party received appropriate compensation.
In addressing the first issue, the court considered the evidence presented regarding the formation of the contract. It was established that there was a written agreement signed by both parties, which outlined the terms and conditions of the contract. The court then examined whether the elements of a contract, such as offer, acceptance, consideration, and intention to create legal relations, were present. After careful analysis, the court found that a binding contract did exist between the parties.
Turning to the second issue, the court assessed whether Lucy Orchard had breached the contract. The evidence showed that Lucy Orchard had failed to fulfil certain obligations under the contract. The court determined that there was a clear breach of contract by Lucy Orchard. In terms of remedy, the court awarded damages to Frayne Higgins for the losses suffered due to the breach.
The final orders of the court were that Lucy Orchard was liable for the breach of contract and must compensate Frayne Higgins for the damages incurred. The exact amount of damages was to be determined in a subsequent hearing. The court's decision provided clarity on the contractual obligations between the parties and ensured that the aggrieved party received appropriate compensation.
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.