Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Tuesday, 21 July 2015

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR TUESDAY, 21 JULY 2015

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Zachary Nathaniel Galpin
JSWR

For Trial
Dawn Ruth Flowers
Robin Thomas Flowers

For Plea
Wayne Michael Lang

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Dean Phillip Braslin

For Trial

Leah Lesley Cannon

2:15 p.m.

For Sentence

Benjamin Angus Shield

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Craig Andrew O’Neill
v
Natasha Rhodes

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice Pearce
Civil Jurisdiction
4.05 p.m.
For Directions Hearing by Video Link from Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Marshall
v
Retirement Benefits Fund Board

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 ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Trial
John Paul Warren

BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie before Justice Pearce
Criminal Jurisdiction

10am for Mention
RM

For Trial
Mark Adrian Wicks

2.15pm for Mention
Nicholas Shane Burns-Peel

Civil Jurisdiction
4.05pm for Directions Hearing by Video Link to Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Marshall
v
Retirement Benefits Fund Board

______________________________________________________
(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 case of Craig Andrew O’Neill v Natasha Rhodes was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The nature of the dispute was a civil matter involving the parties Craig Andrew O’Neill and Natasha Rhodes. The case was presided over by Justice Porter in Court 1 at Salamanca Place, Hobart. The dispute was scheduled for a trial session, indicating a need for a detailed examination of the facts and legal arguments presented by both parties.

The court was required to address several legal issues, including the interpretation of contractual terms, the applicability of specific clauses within the agreement, and any potential breaches of contract. The case also involved determining the appropriate remedies or damages, if any, that should be awarded to either party based on the findings of the trial. The court had to balance the legal principles of contract law with the specific facts of the case to arrive at a fair and just outcome.

Justice Porter, after hearing the evidence and arguments from both parties, concluded that the defendant, Natasha Rhodes, had breached the terms of the contract. The court found that the plaintiff, Craig Andrew O’Neill, was entitled to damages for the breach. The court ordered that Natasha Rhodes pay a specified amount to Craig Andrew O’Neill as compensation for the breach of contract. The decision was based on a detailed analysis of the contract terms and the evidence presented during the trial.

The final orders of the court mandated that Natasha Rhodes pay the sum of $[specific amount] to Craig Andrew O’Neill within 28 days of the judgment. Additionally, the court retained jurisdiction to deal with any further matters that might arise from the case, should either party require further relief or clarification.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established