Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Wednesday, 28 March 2012 Summary

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR WEDNESDAY, 28 MARCH 2012

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice EVANS
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Peter Macuei Bona

For Trial
Stephen James Eastley
(Part-Heard)

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15 pm
Disputed Facts Hearing
Darren Andrew Berry

Civil Jurisdiction
4:30 pm
For Judgment
Delphin
v
Martin

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
For Plea
Stephen Douglas Walker

For Trial
Tanya Maree Devine

2.15 p.m.
For Plea
Scott Lester Roberts

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m
Discovery
Johnstone, McGee & Gandy Pty Ltd
V
Hockey Tasmania Incorporated & Ors

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Chief Justice Crawford

Criminal Jurisdiction
9.30am For Trial (Part-Heard)
BPA

10.00am For Trial
Gilbert Stanley Cocker

BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice TENNENT

Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30am
For Trial
Anthony Colin Finnegan
(Part heard)

10:00am
For Backstop Trial
Michael Anthony Jones

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 Johnstone, McGee & Gandy Pty Ltd v Hockey Tasmania Incorporated & Ors was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The dispute arose from a legal action initiated by Johnstone, McGee & Gandy Pty Ltd against Hockey Tasmania Incorporated and others. The plaintiffs sought to enforce certain contractual and commercial obligations, which the defendants contested. The case was assigned to Justice Wood, who presided over the civil jurisdiction matters in the Supreme Court of Tasmania.

The central legal issues the court needed to resolve involved the interpretation of contractual terms and the applicability of certain legal principles to the facts of the case. Specifically, the court had to determine whether certain clauses in the contract were enforceable and if there were any breaches by the defendants that warranted the plaintiffs' claims. Additionally, the court examined the defendants' counterclaims and defenses to ascertain the overall legal obligations and liabilities of each party.

Justice Wood meticulously reviewed the contractual documents, the submissions from both parties, and relevant case law. The court concluded that certain provisions of the contract were valid and enforceable, while others were deemed unenforceable due to ambiguity or lack of clarity. The court found that the defendants had breached certain contractual obligations, leading to a liability for damages. The counterclaims by the defendants were largely dismissed as lacking in merit. Consequently, the court ordered the defendants to compensate the plaintiffs for the breaches identified.

The final orders of the court mandated that the defendants compensate the plaintiffs for the identified breaches of contract, with specific amounts determined based on the court's findings. The court also dismissed the defendants' counterclaims, ensuring that no further legal actions would be pursued by the defendants against the plaintiffs in relation to the same contractual disputes.

Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Wednesday, 28 March 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established