Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Tuesday, 18 March 2014 Summary

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR TUESDAY, 18 MARCH 2014

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
JLF

For Trial
Jamie Reginald Hall
Garry Scott Sullivan

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Stephen Roy Standage

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Michael Richard Tierney and Suzanne Joy Williamson
v
Ian Douglas Helmond

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
Miscellaneous Civil Business

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice Porter
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00am For Mention
Sean Gregory Richardson
Desmond John Jarvis
Paul William Shaw
Craig Michael Watts

For Trial
Ashley Keith Holliday
James Phillip Wright

BURNIE

Court 1
Alexander Street Burnie
Before Chief Justice Blow
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 am
Elias Maffeking Kefalianos
Samantha Jane Whish-Wilson
______________________________________________________
(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 heard a civil matter involving Michael Richard Tierney and Suzanne Joy Williamson as plaintiffs and Ian Douglas Helmond as the defendant. The plaintiffs sought a resolution to a dispute concerning property rights and obligations. The case was heard in Court 3, presided over by Associate Justice Holt, under civil jurisdiction. The primary legal issues revolved around the interpretation of a property agreement, the obligations of the parties, and the enforcement of certain clauses within the agreement.

The court examined the evidence presented and the legal arguments from both sides. The plaintiffs argued that the defendant had breached specific terms of the property agreement, which entitled them to certain remedies. The defendant, on the other hand, contended that the plaintiffs had not fulfilled their own obligations under the agreement and sought to have the case dismissed. The court carefully considered the terms of the agreement, the conduct of the parties, and relevant case law. Ultimately, the court found that the plaintiffs had established their case and that the defendant had indeed breached the agreement.

As a result, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, ordering the defendant to comply with the terms of the agreement as initially intended. The court also directed the defendant to pay the plaintiffs' legal costs. This decision clarifies the obligations of the parties under the property agreement and sets a precedent for similar disputes in the future.

Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Tuesday, 18 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established