Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Wednesday, 6 December 2017

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA WEDNESDAY, 6 DECEMBER 2017

HOBART

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Michael John Broderick

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT

Criminal Jurisdiction

9:30 a.m.
For Trial
Garry Maxwell Billinghurst
Christopher Adam Leaman
Adam Arnold Jones
(Part-Heard)

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention by video link to
Risdon Prison Complex
Timothy Lee King
Daryl Royston Wayne Cook
Steven Craig Murtagh
Lai Le
Braedon Isaac Males
Bradley Scott Purkiss
Zachary Dylan Wright
Duc Van Nguyen
Gary Matthews
Daniel Cure

For Mention by video link to
Mary Hutchinson Women’s Prison
Margaret Anne Otto
Kylie Jane Hack
Karen Patricia Nancy Keefe

For Mention by video link to
Hobart Reception Prison
KKB
Jason Darrall Triffett
Joshua Roy Tapp

For Mention
Brodie Alan Halton
Travis James Ray
Julie Louise Phillips
Nathan Alan Denny-Garrett
IRF
ALS
Robert Michael Allen
Annalise Bender
Joshua Blair Read
Tyron James Page
Samuel John Everard
Luke Christopher Wayne Rogers
Leigh Dittman

For Bail Consent
JSP
Justin Thomas Knott
Nicholas Edward Wright
Kristel Cee-Ann Cowen
Jacob Michael James Martin
Thomas Oliver Melick
Drew Adrian Burnett
NRD
Jamie Michael Clark
Scott Andrew Turnbull
Christopher David Eastley
Erica Helen Bennett
Jennifer Anne Hindle
Donald Wayne Russell
Bradley Daniel Ford
Natasha Lyn Davie
Kim Maree Maple
Michael David Maple

11:30 a.m.
For Mention
Jason Samuel McCormick

2:15 p.m.
For Decision
Dean Richard Fitzpatrick

2:30 p.m.
For Sentencing Submissions
SWJ

3:00 p.m.
For Mention
NTP

For Directions Hearing
Glenn John McKeown

3:30 p.m.
For Sentencing Submissions
Damien Paul Ford

4:00 p.m.
For Sentence by video link to
Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Joshua John Atkinson

4:15 p.m.
For Bail Application
James Fitzgerald

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Civil Jurisdiction
In Court as in Chambers
4:00 p.m.
For Directions Hearing via video link from
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Zahid Akram Khan Sher
v
Daryl John Smart and anor

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
11:30 a.m. via video link to Launceston
Injunction
Michael Coleman and ors
v
David Cuthbertson

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Trial (Part Heard)
Kerry Alexander Bilston

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice WOOD

Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Daniel Tasman Mark
(Part-Heard)

For Bail Application
RJH

4:00 p.m.
For Mention
Darren Ward Gale

Court 1, Alexander Street Burnie
Before Justice WOOD
Civil Jurisdiction
In Court as in Chambers

4:00 p.m.
For Directions Hearing via video link to
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Zahid Akram Khan Sher
v
Daryl John Smart and anor

(Note: Initials are used where publication of a person's name is not permitted by law.)

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:
subscriptions to the law lists of other courts can be requested at:

The case before the Supreme Court of Tasmania involved a civil dispute between two parties, Michael Coleman and others, and David Cuthbertson. The plaintiffs sought an injunction against the defendant, alleging breaches of contractual terms. The matter was heard in the Launceston Court before Justice Pearce, who was tasked with determining the validity of the plaintiffs' claims and the appropriate remedy, if any, to be granted.

The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether the defendant had indeed breached the terms of the contract, and if so, whether an injunction was the appropriate remedy. This required a detailed examination of the contract's terms, the conduct of the parties, and the potential consequences of granting or withholding an injunction. The court also needed to consider the balance of convenience and whether an injunction would adequately protect the plaintiffs' interests without causing undue hardship to the defendant.

In delivering the judgment, Justice Pearce thoroughly reviewed the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The court found that the defendant had breached the contractual terms, and that an injunction was necessary to prevent further breaches and to protect the plaintiffs' rights. Justice Pearce considered the nature of the contractual obligations, the potential harm to the plaintiffs if the injunction was not granted, and the overall fairness and proportionality of the remedy. Based on these factors, the court concluded that an injunction was appropriate and issued the injunction as sought by the plaintiffs.

The final orders of the court included the granting of an injunction against the defendant, David Cuthbertson, prohibiting him from engaging in certain activities that were in breach of the contract. The court also ordered the defendant to pay costs associated with the proceedings, reflecting the outcome of the litigation.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established