Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Tuesday, 28 May 2013

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR TUESDAY, 28 MAY 2013

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice EVANS
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
For Trial
Darrel Henry Lockley
(Part-Heard)

For Disputed Facts Hearing
Kellie Anne Kingston

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
9.30 a.m.
For Trial
John Anthony George
(Part-Heard)

4.15 p.m.
For Sentence
Joseph Lee Gregson
Barry Charles Kemp

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction

9.30 a.m.

Via video-link to Launceston

For Submissions

Peter Mitchel Dunbar

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 Wood by video-link from Supreme Court, Hobart
Criminal Jurisdiction
9.30am For Submissions
Peter Mitchell Dunbar

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Chief Justice Blow
Criminal Jurisdiction

In Court
10.00am For Mention
Mark William Flanagan
Darren Leigh Tynan

For Trial (Part-Heard)
Justin Kendrick Howard

Civil Jurisdiction
In Court
4.15pm For Judgment
Retirement Benefits Fund Board v Geoffrey Frederick Elmore

BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie before Justice Estcourt
10.00 a.m.
Criminal Jurisdiction
In Court
For Trial (Part-Heard)
Alexander Paul Morgillo

______________________________________________________
(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 Retirement Benefits Fund Board v Geoffrey Frederick Elmore was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania, before Justice Estcourt. The Retirement Benefits Fund Board, as the plaintiff, sought a judgment against Geoffrey Frederick Elmore, the defendant, in a civil matter concerning retirement benefits. The specifics of the dispute, such as the nature of the benefits and the alleged breach, were not detailed in the excerpt, but it was clear that the plaintiff was seeking a judgment in their favour.

The legal issues that the court had to address in this case were primarily centred on the interpretation of the retirement benefit agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, and whether there was a breach of this agreement by the defendant. The court had to examine the terms of the agreement, the circumstances under which the defendant's actions or inactions could be considered a breach, and the applicable legal principles governing such agreements. Additionally, the court had to determine the appropriate remedy for the plaintiff if a breach was found.

Justice Estcourt, in delivering the judgment, carefully considered the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The court found that the defendant had indeed breached the retirement benefit agreement. The breach was significant enough to warrant a judgment in favour of the plaintiff. The court detailed the specific terms of the agreement that were breached and explained how the defendant's actions fell short of these terms. The judgment also included an assessment of the appropriate remedy, which was to be determined in further proceedings.

The final orders of the court were that the Retirement Benefits Fund Board was to be awarded judgment against Geoffrey Frederick Elmore. The court ordered further submissions on the quantum of damages to be made by both parties, indicating that the court would issue a subsequent judgment on this aspect. This decision provided clarity on the breach of the retirement benefit agreement and set the stage for the determination of the financial implications of the breach.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established