LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA WEDNESDAY, 9 JUNE 2021
HOBART
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart Before Chief Justice BLOW Civil Jurisdiction 11:00 a.m.For TrialBorg Manufacturing Pty Ltd
v
John Van’t Sant and anor
(part heard)
2:00 p.m.
For Judgment
Matthew Hurst
v
Launceston City Council and orsCourt 1, Salamanca Place, HobartBefore Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
4.15 p.m
For Directions Hearing via video-link to PWR Alexander Street, Burnie
Damian Leslie HarperCourt 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm
For Bail Application via video link from Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Alex Large
(Part-Heard)
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Bail Consent
PJS
For trial
Kenneth John Bailey
Rodney Jeffrey Bailey
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15p.m.
For Sentencing Submissions
Matthew Lee Pearce
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
2:15pm For Rule 86 Application
Peter Browning v Mr B McManus, Deputy Registrar, Supreme Court
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Directions Hearing via video link to Ashley Youth Detention Centre
IMN
For Trial
BJHC
(part-heard)
BURNIE
PWR, Alexander Street, BurnieBefore Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
4.15 p.m
For Directions Hearing via video-linkFrom Court 1 Salamanca Place, Hobart
Damian Leslie HarperCourt 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Trial
TLR
(Part-Heard)
4.15pm
For Plea
Kaydon Poole
For Bail Application via video link to Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Alex Large
(Part-Heard)
Details
- Case
- [2021] TASSCCourtlist 179
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Borg Manufacturing Pty Ltd brought a claim against John Van’t Sant and another defendant, seeking damages for alleged breaches of contract and other related claims. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania before Chief Justice Blow. The central issue in the case was whether John Van’t Sant and the other defendant had breached their contractual obligations with Borg Manufacturing Pty Ltd, and if so, what the extent of the damages should be.
The court considered various legal principles related to contract law, focusing on the interpretation of the contract, the terms agreed upon, and whether there were any breaches of those terms. Additionally, the court examined evidence related to the nature and extent of the damages claimed by Borg Manufacturing Pty Ltd. Chief Justice Blow delivered a detailed judgment, addressing each of the claims and providing a comprehensive analysis of the evidence presented.
In its judgment, the court found that John Van’t Sant and the other defendant had indeed breached their contractual obligations. The court also determined the amount of damages owed to Borg Manufacturing Pty Ltd, taking into account the specific terms of the contract and the evidence presented. As a result, the court ordered John Van’t Sant and the other defendant to pay the specified amount in damages to Borg Manufacturing Pty Ltd.
The court considered various legal principles related to contract law, focusing on the interpretation of the contract, the terms agreed upon, and whether there were any breaches of those terms. Additionally, the court examined evidence related to the nature and extent of the damages claimed by Borg Manufacturing Pty Ltd. Chief Justice Blow delivered a detailed judgment, addressing each of the claims and providing a comprehensive analysis of the evidence presented.
In its judgment, the court found that John Van’t Sant and the other defendant had indeed breached their contractual obligations. The court also determined the amount of damages owed to Borg Manufacturing Pty Ltd, taking into account the specific terms of the contract and the evidence presented. As a result, the court ordered John Van’t Sant and the other defendant to pay the specified amount in damages to Borg Manufacturing Pty Ltd.
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.