Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Friday, 4 July 2014

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR FRIDAY, 4 JULY 2014

HOBART
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the FULL COURT
9:45 a.m.
For Judgment
Andrew Kevin Langmaid & Kevin George Langmaid t/as Cherry Hill Coolstores and Latrobe Cool Stores Pty Ltd
v
Dobsons Vegetable Machinery Pty Ltd t/as Dobmac Agricultural Machinery

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Rodney Matthew Klye
Nathan Bush
Bodie Kane Savage

For Plea
Jason Charles Dare
Shannon James Duffy

2:15 p.m.
For Sentence
Mark William Ransley

For Plea
Brendan Lee Woods

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:15 a.m.
For Trial
Stephen Roy Standage
(Part-Heard)

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice Pearce
Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00am For Sentence
Adrian John Pryer

BURNIE
No list for Burnie

______________________________________________________
(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 case of Andrew Kevin Langmaid and Kevin George Langmaid trading as Cherry Hill Coolstores and Latrobe Cool Stores Pty Ltd versus Dobsons Vegetable Machinery Pty Ltd trading as Dobmac Agricultural Machinery was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The dispute between the parties centres around contractual obligations and potential breaches, as well as issues of liability and damages arising from the relationship between the cool stores and the machinery supplier. Justice Porter presided over the proceedings in the Hobart court, where the case was heard in Court 1.

The legal issues that the court needed to address included the interpretation of the contract between the cool stores and the machinery supplier, the determination of whether there were any breaches of the contractual terms, and the extent of any damages or liabilities that might arise from such breaches. The court also needed to consider the respective rights and obligations of both parties under the contract, as well as any relevant statutory provisions that might apply.

In delivering the judgment, Justice Porter examined the terms of the contract in detail, considering the specific obligations of each party and the circumstances in which any alleged breaches occurred. The court took into account the evidence presented by both parties and analysed the relevant legal principles. After thorough deliberation, the court concluded that there were breaches of the contract by the machinery supplier, which resulted in certain damages to the cool stores. The judgment outlined the specific findings and the rationale behind them, leading to a determination of liability and the quantification of damages owed.

The final orders of the court included a declaration that the machinery supplier was liable for the breaches of contract, an order for the payment of damages by the machinery supplier to the cool stores, and directions for the enforcement of these orders. The court also made orders regarding costs, ensuring that the prevailing party was awarded appropriate costs of the proceedings.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established