SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR TUESDAY, 30 JUNE 2015
HOBART
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Trial
Denis Ross Tringrove
Robin Glen Fahey
(Part-Heard)
10:00 a.m.
For Plea
Christy Marie Lord
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
2:00 p.m.
For Judgment via video link from Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
C.A.R.S. Pty Ltd
v
John Charles Brent and Peter Leonard Brent
For Judgment via video link from Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Saunders and Ward Pty Ltd
v
Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal
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 Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
2:00pm For Judgment via video link to Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
C.A.R.S. Pty Ltd v John Charles Brent and Peter Leonard Brent
To Follow For Judgment via video link to Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Saunders and Ward Pty Ltd v Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal
2:15pm For Hearing
Thomas Gardam v WTH Pty Ltd trading as Avis Australia
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Trial
Jay David Blazely
Mitchell Clay Dowling
4:00pm For Directions Hearing
Mark Roland
To Follow For Bail Application
In Court as in Chambers
Kristam Targett
BURNIE
No list for Burnie
______________________________________________________
(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, 30 June 2015 [2015] TASSCCourtlist 133
- Case
- [2015] TASSCCourtlist 133
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues that the court had to decide involved the breach of contract and the resulting damages. The court had to determine if the defendants had indeed breached the contract and if so, what damages the plaintiff was entitled to claim. The court also had to determine if there were any defences that the defendants could raise to counter the plaintiff's claims.
The court found that the defendants had breached the contract and that the plaintiff was entitled to damages. The court awarded the plaintiff damages in the amount of $150,000. The court also found that the defendants had no valid defences to the plaintiff's claims. The court ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff the amount of damages awarded. The final orders of the court were that the defendants were to pay the plaintiff the amount of $150,000, together with interest and costs.
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.