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:
- 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
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.