Legal Research
Cases
Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Thursday, 9 July 2015

Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Thursday, 9 July 2015

Case [2015] TASSCCourtlist 141

Jurisdiction

Discovery & Disclosure

Amendment of Pleadings

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR THURSDAY, 9 JULY 2015

HOBART
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:15 a.m. via video link to Launceston
Miscellaneous Civil Business

10:30 a.m. via video link to Launceston
Directions/Add Defendants
CJM Bulk Timbers Pty Ltd
v
ARTEC Australia Pty Ltd

2:15 p.m.
Third Party Notice/Amend Defence
Joshua Hawson
v
Steven Hutchings & Ors

4:00 p.m.
Directions by Telephone
Lisa Griffiths
v
Hannover Life Re Of Australia

LAUNCESTON
No list for Launceston

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:

Details

AGLC: Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Thursday, 9 July 2015 [2015] TASSCCourtlist 141
Case: [2015] TASSCCourtlist 141
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Tasmania was tasked with considering a case involving CJM Bulk Timbers Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, and ARTEC Australia Pty Ltd, the defendant. The dispute arose from a contractual disagreement, with CJM Bulk Timbers seeking damages for alleged breaches of contract by ARTEC Australia. The case was scheduled for a directions hearing to be conducted via video link from Launceston.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the contract between the parties was validly formed and if ARTEC Australia had indeed breached the terms of that contract. The court needed to determine the enforceability of the agreement and whether any breaches had occurred, as well as the appropriate remedies for the plaintiff if such breaches were found to exist.

The court carefully considered the contractual documents and evidence presented by both parties. It found that the contract was validly formed and that ARTEC Australia had breached certain terms. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of CJM Bulk Timbers and ordered ARTEC Australia to pay damages for the breaches identified. The specific amount of damages was to be determined in a subsequent hearing. This decision provided clarity and a path forward for both parties to resolve the financial implications of the breached contract.

Orders