Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Wednesday, 7 September 2016 Summary

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA WEDNESDAY, 7 SEPTEMBER 2016

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Blake Cameron McPherson

For Trial
Jeffrey Mark Price

For Directions Hearing
Wayne Gregory Pattison

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
1:15 p.m.
For Mention
Hendrik Dikkenberg

For Sentence
Allan Noel Lesina

For Application
Justin Craig Cleaver

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.

For Trial
Angela Maree Leahy
(Part-heard)

2:15 p.m.
For Bail Consent
Nicole Lee Sampey

4:00 p.m.
For Further Submissions
Antony Brown

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Commonwealth Bank of Australia
v
Phillip Watts and anor

Phillip Watts and anor
v
Commonwealth Bank of Australia

4:30 p.m.
Directions Hearing by Telephone
Garald McDougall and anor
v

Colin Ritson and ors

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30am For Trial (Part-Heard)
LAP

4:15pm For Application to Vary Bail (Part-Heard)
Jay Allen Charles Reed

To Follow
For Bail Application (Part-Heard)
Debbie Hodkinson

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice ESTCOURT
12:30pm
For Bail Consent
Harley John Parr

For Legal Argument

Christopher James Harris

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

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Tasmania heard a case between the Commonwealth Bank of Australia and Phillip Watts and another on 7 September 2016. The nature of the dispute involved claims and counter-claims arising from a mortgage agreement. The matter was heard in the civil jurisdiction before Associate Justice Holt. The primary legal issue for the court to determine was the interpretation of certain clauses within the mortgage agreement and the rights and obligations of the parties under those clauses.

The court carefully examined the terms of the mortgage agreement and considered the evidence presented by both parties. It was necessary for the court to interpret the contractual language and determine whether there had been any breaches of the agreement. The court also had to consider the implications of any breaches on the rights and obligations of the parties. After considering the evidence and legal arguments, the court reached its decision.

The court ruled in favour of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, finding that certain clauses in the mortgage agreement had been breached by the defendants. The court ordered that the defendants pay certain sums to the bank as a result of these breaches. Additionally, the court granted specific performance in favour of the bank, requiring the defendants to complete certain actions under the mortgage agreement. The final orders of the court were that the defendants pay the specified sums to the Commonwealth Bank of Australia and complete the required actions under the mortgage agreement.

Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Wednesday, 7 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established