Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Wednesday, 5 April 2017

Case [2017] TASSCCourtlist 83


LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA WEDNESDAY, 5 APRIL 2017

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Kyam Keith Broadby

For Bail Consent
MDR

For Trial
Kelly Raema Mundy Page
Michelle Lee Arnott
(Part-Heard)

4:15 p.m.
For Bail Application
Anthony Jackman

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00 p.m.
For Disputed Facts Hearing
Blake Cameron McPherson
(Part-Heard)

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.
For Special Hearing
WLNH

2:15 p.m.
For Sentence
David John Charles King

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction

4:00 p.m.
For Bail Application
Amber Brudenell

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
4:00 p.m.
For Judgment via video-link to Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
RV Pty Ltd
v
Connector Park Pty Ltd

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Civil Jurisdiction
3:15 p.m.
For Directions Hearing
Paul Francis Allison
v
Tuna Tasmania Pty Ltd & Ors

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
Amend Proceedings
Shane Streets
v
Motor Accidents Insurance Board

Shane Streets
v
Telina Phillips & anor

LAUNCESTON
Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
4:00pm For Judgment via video-link to Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
RV Pty Ltd  v  Connector Park Pty Ltd

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00am For Facts and Sentence
Daniel Mark Delphine

BURNIE

No list for Burnie.

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:

subscriptions to the law lists of other courts can be requested at:

Details
AGLC
Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Wednesday, 5 April 2017 [2017] TASSCCourtlist 83
Case
[2017] TASSCCourtlist 83
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of RV Pty Ltd v Connector Park Pty Ltd, the Supreme Court of Tasmania delivered a judgment on 5 April 2017. The case involved a dispute between the plaintiff, RV Pty Ltd, and the defendant, Connector Park Pty Ltd. The court was called upon to resolve various issues arising from the contractual relationship between the parties.

The legal issues that the court had to decide included the interpretation of the contract terms, the parties' respective obligations, and the consequences of any breaches. Additionally, the court had to consider the implications of any misrepresentations made by one party to the other during the negotiation and formation of the contract. The court also needed to determine whether any damages were owed by either party and, if so, the appropriate amount.

The court's reasoning involved a thorough analysis of the contractual documents and the evidence presented by both parties. The judges examined the language of the contract, the context in which it was formed, and the conduct of the parties thereafter. After careful consideration, the court found that there were breaches of contract on the part of Connector Park Pty Ltd, which led to the plaintiff suffering losses. The court awarded damages to RV Pty Ltd and provided a detailed explanation of the basis for the quantum of damages.

The final orders included a monetary award to RV Pty Ltd for the losses incurred as a result of Connector Park Pty Ltd's breaches of contract. The court also made orders concerning the costs of the proceeding, which were to be borne by Connector Park Pty Ltd. This judgment provides a clear precedent for similar contractual disputes in the future.

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.