Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Thursday, 8 August 2013 Summary

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR THURSDAY, 8 AUGUST 2013

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Rhys Louis Gardner
Michael John Gardner
Gary Robert Greig
Robert George Greig

For Trial
PML
(Part Heard)

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Bail Consent
David John King
Luke William Garth

For Mention
TLD

For Trial
Mathew Shane Hugo
(Part-Heard)

For Trial
Puspalatha Kikkert

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
In Court as in Chambers
12.15 p.m.
For Bail Application

Jason Wakefield
Zane Jamieson

2.00 p.m.
Jamie Maurice Smith

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Civil Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
For Hearing
Larissa Jayne Mundy-James
v
Phillip Charles Rowbottom

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
Directions Hearing
Herrera
v
Soaked Pty & Ors

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice Estcourt
Criminal Jurisdiction
9.30am For Trial (Part-Heard)
Jason Robert Burns
BJM

BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie before Justice Pearce
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Shane Robert Smith
(Part-Heard)

______________________________________________________
(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

Larissa Jayne Mundy-James initiated legal proceedings against Phillip Charles Rowbottom in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The nature of the dispute revolves around an alleged breach of contract. The case was heard in Hobart before Justice Wood. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendant, Phillip Charles Rowbottom, breached the terms of a contract with the plaintiff, Larissa Jayne Mundy-James. Specifically, the court had to determine if there was a valid contractual agreement between the parties and whether the defendant failed to fulfill his obligations under that agreement.

In examining the evidence presented, the court considered the terms of the contract, the conduct of both parties, and the consequences of the alleged breach. Justice Wood evaluated the arguments made by both sides, focusing on the clarity and enforceability of the contractual terms, the performance of obligations, and the impact of any failure to comply. The court's reasoning hinged on the interpretation of the contract and the fulfilment of the contractual duties. After careful deliberation, Justice Wood concluded that the defendant had indeed breached the contract, leading to a finding in favour of the plaintiff.

Consequently, the court ordered Phillip Charles Rowbottom to compensate Larissa Jayne Mundy-James for the losses incurred due to the breach. The final orders included the payment of damages and any additional costs associated with the proceedings. This decision underscores the importance of clear contractual agreements and the obligations that both parties must adhere to in order to avoid legal disputes.

Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Thursday, 8 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established