Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Friday, 17 October 2014

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR FRIDAY, 17 OCTOBER 2014

AMENDED LIST FOR BURNIE

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Trial
Jamie Peter Smart
Rhys Louis Gardner
(Part-Heard)

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Mention
Benjamin Michael Fama
Maxwell Douglas Morrison
Trysten Anthony Bennett

For Trial
Trent McSpadden
Natalie Jean Millhouse
(Part-Heard)

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:15 a.m. via video link to Burnie
Miscellaneous Civil Business

10:30 a.m.
Directions Hearing
Wal’s Bulk Meats Pty Ltd and Ors
v
Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited
v
Wal’s Bulk Meats Pty Ltd and Ors

LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00am For Disputed Facts Hearing
Cameron James Brasher

For Trial (Part-Heard)
Tristan Andrew Tuthill

BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie before Justice Porter
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.

For Mention via video-link to Risdon Prison
Nathan Gregory Coppleman
Mark Christopher Bramich

For Mention
William John Hill

For Preliminary Proceedings Application
John Anthony Evernett

For Sentence
Jodie Helen Connelly

For Plea
Anthony David Mitchell
Chad Leo Nightingale

______________________________________________________
(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 involving Wal’s Bulk Meats Pty Ltd and others against Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited, and vice versa. The dispute centred around issues of contract law, specifically breach of contract and associated damages. The case was heard in Court 3 in Hobart before Associate Justice Holt.

The primary legal issue was whether the bank had breached the terms of a loan agreement with the meat company, and if so, what the extent of the damages should be. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the company had acted in a way that contributed to the bank's alleged breach. The matter involved detailed examination of the terms of the contract, the conduct of both parties, and the applicable legal principles governing breach of contract.

Associate Justice Holt, after hearing arguments from both sides, concluded that the bank had indeed breached the terms of the loan agreement. The breach resulted in financial loss for the meat company, and the bank was ordered to pay damages. The court also found that the meat company had partially contributed to the breach, which reduced the total amount of damages awarded. The final orders included a monetary compensation for the meat company and outlined the terms of repayment.

The court's decision was based on a comprehensive review of the contract, the actions of both parties, and relevant legal precedents. The outcome provided clarity for both parties regarding their rights and obligations under the loan agreement.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established