Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Tuesday, 5 March 2013

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR TUESDAY, 5 MARCH 2013

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice EVANS
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.

For Directions Hearing

Gary Robert Greig

Robert George Greig

For Trial

Nathan James Carins

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BLOW
10:00 a.m.
Criminal Jurisdiction
For Trial
Ian Robert Cooksey

For Disputed Facts Hearing
Nicholas Barry Wordsworth

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Civil Jurisdiction
9.30 a.m.
For Trial
Associated Forest Holding Pty Ltd and Ors
v
Gordian Runoff Limited
(Part-Heard)

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 Wood
Criminal Jurisdiction

10.00am For Mention
Luke John Smith
Brent John Bingley
Mark William Flanagan

For Trial
Joshua Daniel Wilson

BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street Burnie before Justice Porter
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00am

For Trial
Tamyka Lea Buchanan
Alan Arkinstall

_______________________________________________________

(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 before the Supreme Court of Tasmania involves Associated Forest Holding Pty Ltd and others, who are suing Gordian Runoff Limited. The nature of the dispute pertains to civil matters related to the contract or agreement between the parties, and possibly issues of insurance or indemnity. The case was heard in Hobart in Court 3 before Associate Justice Holt.

The legal issues that the court had to address included the interpretation of the contract between the parties, the extent of the obligations and liabilities under the contract, and the damages or remedies available to the plaintiffs if the defendants were found to have breached the agreement. The court also had to consider any relevant insurance policies or indemnity clauses that might affect the outcome of the case.

The court's reasoning and outcome were not explicitly stated in the document, but it is likely that the court considered the evidence presented by both parties, including any expert testimony or documentary evidence. The court may have also taken into account any relevant legal precedents or statutory provisions. The final orders of the court are not provided in the document, but it is likely that the court made a decision on the issues in dispute and awarded any appropriate damages or remedies to the successful party.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established