SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR TUESDAY, 19 MAY 2015
HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Emma Louise Hall
(Part-Heard)
4:00 p.m.
For Plea in Mitigation
Shaun Matthew Dimech
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Benjamin James Chatters
4:15 p.m.
For Sentence via video link to Supreme Court, Alexander Street, Burnie
Glenn Paul Watts
Daniel Peter Leonard Thorne
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Jon Wheaton t/a MMS Renovations and Marketing Management Services (MMS)
v
Sophia Catherina Bromley
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Civil Jurisdiction
In Court as in Chambers
10:00 a.m.
Chamber Matters
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
Miscellaneous Civil Business
LAUNCESTON
Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
In Court
4:15pm For Bail Consent
Anthony Mekhael
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30am For Trial (Part-Heard)
Shaun Andrew Blake
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie before Justice Wood
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Sentence (via video link from Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart)
Glenn Paul Watts
Daniel Peter Leonard Thorne
______________________________________________________
(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:
- AGLC
- Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Tuesday, 19 May 2015 [2015] TASSCCourtlist 97
- Case
- [2015] TASSCCourtlist 97
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was to determine whether the defendant, Sophia Catherina Bromley, had breached the terms of the contract with the plaintiff, Jon Wheaton trading as MMS Renovations and Marketing Management Services. The court had to examine the specific clauses of the contract in question, assess the evidence presented by both parties, and decide if there was a valid claim for breach of contract. Additionally, the court had to consider any counterclaims or defences presented by the defendant and evaluate their validity.
In delivering the judgment, Justice Estcourt meticulously reviewed the contractual documents and the submissions made by both parties. The court found that certain terms of the contract had indeed been breached by the defendant. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, awarding damages to Jon Wheaton trading as MMS Renovations and Marketing Management Services. The court provided a detailed rationale for its decision, highlighting the specific clauses of the contract that were breached and the evidence supporting the plaintiff's claims. Justice Estcourt concluded that the defendant had failed to meet her contractual obligations, justifying the award of damages to the plaintiff.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.