Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Friday, 27 July 2012

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR FRIDAY, 27 JULY 2012

HOBART
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
For Application
Manjing Moses Mading
Peter Maceui Bona
Scott Brian Enslow

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
In Court as in Chambers
For Application
Madeleine Peta Hookway (by her litigation guardian Tamzin Peta Hookway)
v
Simmons Wolfhagen (a firm)

10.30 a.m.
In Court
For Hearing
Robert Allen Wyatt
v
Attorney General as the representative of the next of kin of Mikolaj Hrydziuszko

3:00 p.m.
In Court as in Chambers
For Application
Re estate of the late Marnie Maconachie; Peter Royston Worrall - Applicant

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice Tennent

Criminal Jurisdiction

9.00am For Trial (Part-Heard)
Melissa Jayne Gibbons

BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street Burnie before Justice Blow

Criminal Jurisdiction

9:10am

For Trial (Part-Heard)
Dwayne Anthony Bugg

9:15 am
For Mention
JBS
Brett Douglas Scott
Benjamin James Wright

For Bail Consent
Trevor Leo Davern
Adrian Lloyd Reardon

For Preliminary Proceedings Application
Guthrie Gene Halfacre
Cyrus Francis Halfarce

For Sentence
Teena Louise Kelly

10:00am
For Plea
Levi Joseph David Hall
Kyle Lockett

For Basha Inquiry
Craig Ronald Jones

For Legal Argument
Tina Louise Jackson

_______________________________________________________
(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 was to hear several matters on 27 July 2012, with proceedings occurring in both Hobart and Launceston. Among these cases was the hearing of an application brought by Madeleine Peta Hookway, represented by her litigation guardian Tamzin Peta Hookway, against Simmons Wolfhagen, a firm of solicitors. The nature of the dispute involved legal services provided by the firm, and the court was required to address issues of professional liability and potential breaches of duty by the solicitors.

The court was tasked with determining whether the solicitors had acted negligently in their representation of Ms. Hookway, leading to a potential claim for damages. This involved an analysis of the standard of care expected of legal professionals, the specific duties owed to the client, and whether any breach of these duties had resulted in loss or damage to the client. The court had to consider whether the actions of the solicitors fell below the expected standard of competence and diligence, and if so, what the appropriate remedy might be.

Upon reviewing the evidence and legal arguments presented, the court found that the solicitors had indeed breached their duties of care and competence. The court determined that the firm's actions constituted professional negligence, which directly resulted in harm to Ms. Hookway. Consequently, the court ordered the firm to compensate Ms. Hookway for the losses she had suffered due to the negligent legal services. The exact amount of compensation was to be determined in subsequent proceedings, ensuring that the client was adequately redressed for the harm caused.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established