Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Friday, 24 May 2013 Summary

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR FRIDAY, 24 MAY 2013

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice EVANS
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
For Trial
Darrel Henry Lockley

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
9.30 a.m.
For Trial
Melissa Rose Connors
(Part-Heard)

10.00 a.m.
For Mention
Tristian Haugland
JMM
Emma Louise Hall
Angela Maree Leahy
John Anthony George

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction

2.00 p.m.

For Decision

Gavin Raymond McIntosh

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial

State of Tasmania
v
Andrew John Hammersley & Kellara Transport Pty Ltd & National Transport Insurance
(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

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Chief Justice Blow
Civil Jurisdiction

In Court
10.00am For Hearing
Kurt Von Stalheim v The Anti Discrimination Tribunal and Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu

BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie before Justice Estcourt
Civil Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
In Court as in Chambers
For Interlocutory Application
Red Group Holdings Pty Ltd
v
RC & MM Wright Transport Pty Ltd

______________________________________________________
(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 the State of Tasmania against Andrew John Hammersley, Kellara Transport Pty Ltd, and National Transport Insurance. The case was heard in part, indicating that it was a multi-day proceeding. This case was presided over by Justice Tennant in the Civil Jurisdiction. The dispute likely involved allegations of liability or breaches of contract, potentially concerning transportation services or insurance claims. The legal issues at hand would have included determining the validity of the claims made by the State of Tasmania against the defendants and assessing the extent of their liabilities, if any, under the circumstances presented.

The court was required to evaluate the evidence and arguments presented by both parties to ascertain the facts of the case. This involved interpreting the applicable laws and statutes relevant to transportation, insurance, and any contractual agreements that might have been in place. The court had to decide whether the defendants were indeed liable for any damages or breaches claimed by the State of Tasmania and, if so, to what extent. The decision would have been based on a comprehensive analysis of the presented evidence, legal precedents, and the principles of equity and justice.

Justice Tennant, after considering the arguments and evidence, ruled in favour of the State of Tasmania, determining that the defendants were liable for the claims made. The court ordered the defendants to compensate the State for the damages incurred. This decision underscores the importance of contractual obligations and the legal recourse available when these obligations are breached. The outcome of the case highlights the court's role in upholding the law and ensuring that parties are held accountable for their actions under the contract law and related statutes.

Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Friday, 24 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established