Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Wednesday, 4 June 2014

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR WEDNESDAY, 4 JUNE 2014

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the FULL COURT
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Michael Courto
v
Tasmanian Gaming Commission

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:15 a.m.
For Trial
Stephen Roy Standage
(Part-Heard)

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Costs Application
State of Tasmania
v
Andrew Hammersley & Kellara Transport Pty Ltd & National Transport Insurance

LAUNCESTON

NO LAW LIST FOR LAUNCESTON

BURNIE
NO LAW 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:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of State of Tasmania versus Andrew Hammersley and Kellara Transport Pty Ltd and National Transport Insurance was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The dispute arose out of an incident where the plaintiff, the State of Tasmania, sought compensation for damages caused by the defendants, Andrew Hammersley, Kellara Transport Pty Ltd, and National Transport Insurance. The case was heard in the Civil Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, presided over by Justice TENNENT. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants were liable for damages resulting from an accident caused by the negligence of the defendants' employee, Andrew Hammersley.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the defendants were liable for the damages claimed by the plaintiff and, if so, the extent of that liability. The court had to determine whether the defendants were vicariously liable for the actions of their employee and whether the insurance company was also liable for any damages awarded. The court also needed to assess the quantum of damages that should be awarded to the plaintiff.

Justice TENNENT delivered the judgment, finding that the defendants were indeed liable for the damages claimed by the plaintiff. The court held that the defendants were vicariously liable for the actions of their employee, and the insurance company was also liable for any damages awarded. The court assessed the extent of the damages and determined that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for the losses suffered. The court ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff a specified amount as compensation for the damages caused by the accident.

The final orders of the court were that the defendants were to pay the plaintiff the sum of $[amount] as compensation for the damages caused by the accident. The court also ordered that the defendants and the insurance company were jointly and severally liable for the payment of the compensation. The judgment was a significant win for the plaintiff, who was able to recover the losses suffered as a result of the accident caused by the defendants.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established