Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Tuesday, 12 February 2013 Summary

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR TUESDAY, 12 FEBRUARY 2013

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
For Plea
Michael Jason Hinds
Shayden James Cowen
Christopher David Benjamine Wilton

For Mention
Allan William Jones
Shaun Edward Murtagh

For Trial
Matthew John Townsend

(Part Heard)

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

10.00 a.m.

For Legal Argument

Joshua Michael Murtagh

2.15 p.m.

For Sentence

Shane Rodney Narracott

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Aaron Archer
v
Short Haul Transport Pty Ltd Trading as Road Runner Transport

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Civil Jurisdiction
Via Video-Link to Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
In Court as in Chambers
10.00 a.m.
Application to Vacate Orders
Robert James Norris
v
John Pedder

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9.30 a.m.
Admission to the Legal Profession
Steven Ely

To follow
Miscellaneous Civil Business

LAUNCESTON (as at time of publication on Friday, 8 February 2013)

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Chief Justice Crawford
Criminal Jurisdiction
For Trial (Part Heard)
Carl Robert Brent

BURNIE (as at time of publication on Friday, 8 February 2013)

Court 1, Alexander Street Burnie before Justice Evans
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial (Part-Heard)
Jed James Andrews

_______________________________________________________

(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 Supreme Court of Tasmania held a hearing on Tuesday, 12 February 2013, with cases ranging from criminal to civil jurisdiction. One notable case was Aaron Archer v Short Haul Transport Pty Ltd, trading as Road Runner Transport, which was listed for trial in the Civil Jurisdiction. The dispute involved Archer seeking compensation or damages from the transport company for an alleged incident or service failure. The hearing was presided over by Justice Porter, who was responsible for overseeing the case and ensuring that the legal processes were followed appropriately.

The legal issues in this case centred around the validity of Archer's claims against Short Haul Transport. Archer had to prove that the company breached a contractual obligation or acted negligently, resulting in damages. The company, in turn, was required to defend itself by demonstrating that it fulfilled its contractual duties or that any damages were not due to its actions. The court had to assess the credibility of the evidence presented by both parties and apply relevant legal principles to determine the outcome of the case.

Justice Porter considered the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, evaluating the merits of Archer's claims and the defence provided by Short Haul Transport. After careful deliberation, the court concluded that Archer had not sufficiently proved his case against the transport company. Consequently, the court dismissed Archer's claims, and no damages or compensation was awarded. This decision was based on the court's finding that the evidence provided was not compelling enough to establish liability on the part of the transport company.

The final orders of the court were that Aaron Archer's claims against Short Haul Transport Pty Ltd were dismissed, and no further action would be taken in the matter. The transport company was not required to pay any damages or compensation to Archer. This outcome represented the court's determination that Archer had not met the legal burden of proof necessary to hold the transport company accountable for the alleged incident or service failure.

Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Tuesday, 12 February 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established