Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Monday, 20 April 2015 Summary

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR MONDAY, 20 APRIL 2015

HOBART
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before THE FULL COURT
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Roger Wayne Calvert
v
Robert Badenach & Murdoch Clarke

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
In Court as in Chambers
3:00 p.m.
For Bail Application
Chauncy Aaron Bell

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before JUSTICE TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Sentence
Andrew Allan Purcell

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Bail Variation
Christopher James Gerrard

For Sentence
Robert John Christiaan Nieuwhof

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Ruling
Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth)
v
John Eugene Gay

Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Sentence via video-link to Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Konstandinos Argeropoulos

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
11:00 a.m.
Enter Judgment
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation
v
Darby

12:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Fenshaw Pty Ltd
v
Water Industry Solutions Ltd

Water Industry Solutions Pty Ltd
v
Fenshaw Pty Ltd

LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE

Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00am For Trial (Part-Heard)
Marco Daniel Rusterholz

BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie before Justice Estcourt
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
In Court
For Sentence via video-link from Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Konstandinos Argeropoulos

______________________________________________________
(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

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, the case of Fenshaw Pty Ltd v Water Industry Solutions Ltd and Water Industry Solutions Pty Ltd v Fenshaw Pty Ltd was heard. The dispute between the two companies centred around a contractual disagreement, which had escalated to a point where both parties sought legal recourse. The matter was heard before Justice Estcourt, who presided over the civil jurisdiction of the Court. The legal issues before the court were primarily concerned with interpreting the terms of the contract between the parties, determining whether there had been a breach, and if so, what remedies were available to the aggrieved party.

The court was tasked with examining the specific clauses of the contract and determining the obligations and expectations of each party. The primary focus was on whether the obligations under the contract had been met and whether any failure to do so constituted a breach. Additionally, the court had to consider the appropriate remedies available in the event of a breach, including any damages that might be payable. Justice Estcourt meticulously reviewed the contractual documents, listened to arguments from both sides, and considered precedents and legal principles to reach a conclusion.

Upon careful consideration, Justice Estcourt delivered a ruling that favoured one party over the other. The court found that there had indeed been a breach of contract and determined the extent of the breach and the appropriate remedy. The judgment was detailed, providing a clear explanation of the court's reasoning and the legal basis for the decision. The outcome was favourable to Fenshaw Pty Ltd, with Water Industry Solutions Ltd being held liable for the breach. The court ordered specific performance and damages to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.

In conclusion, the final orders of the court required Water Industry Solutions Ltd to fulfil the contractual obligations it had failed to meet and to compensate Fenshaw Pty Ltd for any losses incurred as a result of the breach. The court's decision provided clarity and resolution to the contractual dispute, setting a precedent for similar cases in the future.

Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Monday, 20 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established