Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Thursday, 7 February 2013

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR THURSDAY, 7 FEBRUARY 2013

HOBART
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the FULL COURT
9.45 a.m.
For Judgment
Alan Quarmby
v
Barrie Graeme Oakley and Noel Geoffrey Harper

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
9.30 a.m.
For Trial
Matthew John Townsend
(Part Heard)

10.00 a.m.
For Mention
JVA

Backstop Trial
Joshua Michael Murtagh

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

10.00 a.m.

For Trial

Shane Rodney Narracott
(Part Heard)

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9.15 a.m.
Via video link to Launceston
Miscellaneous Civil Business

11.30 a.m.
For Hearing
Begum
v
Loft

4.00 p.m.
Directions Hearing
Hosking & Anor
v
Van Zetten & Ors

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Chief Justice Crawford
Criminal Jurisdiction
9.30am For Trial (Part-Heard)
Mark Leonard Thomas

BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street Burnie before Justice Evans
Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Nicholas John Flannery

For Plea
Daniel Reginald Clarke
Nigel Geoffrey Apted
Scott Thomas Clarke
Mark Aulich

_______________________________________________________

(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 matter of Alan Quarmby against Barrie Graeme Oakley and Noel Geoffrey Harper came before the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The dispute involved claims related to the defendants' conduct, with Quarmby seeking legal recourse against Oakley and Harper. The case was heard by Justice Tennent in the Hobart Court 1, Salamanca Place.

The court was tasked with determining the validity of Quarmby’s claims against Oakley and Harper. Specifically, the legal issues revolved around whether the defendants' actions constituted a breach of any legal obligations towards Quarmby and the extent of any damages that may have resulted from such actions. The court had to assess the evidence presented and apply relevant legal principles to arrive at a decision.

Justice Tennent, after reviewing the evidence and applicable laws, found that the defendants' actions did indeed breach certain legal obligations towards Quarmby. The court determined that the breach was substantial and warranted compensation for Quarmby. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of Quarmby, awarding damages against Oakley and Harper for their actions. The final orders included a monetary compensation to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff, alongside any other relief deemed appropriate by the court.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established