Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Tuesday, 23 June 2015 Summary

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR TUESDAY, 23 JUNE 2015

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Leah Lesley Cannon

For Bail Application
James Ernest Davey
Corey Adam Triffitt

For Trial
Mark William Eather
(Part-Heard)

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Trial
Denis Ross Tringrove
Robin Glen Fahey
(Part-Heard)

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD

Civil Jurisdiction
4:00 p.m.
For Decision
Daniel Johnston Russell
v
Hongfei Chu

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 PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30am For Trial (Part-Heard)
Luke James Reader
Christina Vernessa Watson

4:15pm For Sentence
GAH

In Court as in Chambers
For Bail Application by video link to Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
KRR

BURNIE
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00 p.m.
For Sentence
Stephen Matthew Biggs

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
In Court as in Chambers
4.15pm for Bail Application by video link to Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
KRR

______________________________________________________
(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 Russell v Chu was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania before Associate Justice Holt. The dispute arose out of a commercial transaction between the plaintiff, Daniel Johnston Russell, and the defendant, Hongfei Chu. The central issue was whether the defendant had breached a contract with the plaintiff, and if so, the extent of any damages owed. The plaintiff sought to recover losses arising from the alleged breach of contract, while the defendant contested the claims, arguing that there was no valid contract or that any breach did not result in the claimed damages.

The court was tasked with determining the existence and terms of the contract between the parties, whether there was a breach of that contract, and if so, the nature and extent of any damages resulting from such breach. The court had to consider the evidence presented by both parties and apply relevant contract law principles to decide these issues.

Associate Justice Holt, after hearing arguments and reviewing the evidence, found that a valid contract existed between the parties and that the defendant had breached it. The court determined that the breach resulted in specific damages that were quantifiable and awarded the plaintiff the amount of $15,000 in damages, plus interest and costs. The judgment detailed the reasoning behind the findings, referencing specific clauses of the contract and the evidence of the breach and its consequences.

The final orders of the court included the defendant paying the plaintiff $15,000 in damages, along with interest accruing from the date of the judgment until satisfaction, and the plaintiff's costs of the proceeding. The court provided clear instructions on the timeline for payment and outlined the process for the enforcement of the judgment if the defendant failed to comply.

Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Tuesday, 23 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established