Tasmanian Law Lists for Tuesday, 31 January 2012 Summary

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR
TUESDAY, 31 JANUARY 2012

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
Preliminary Proceedings Application
Gary Robert Greig

For Mention
Damian Gordon Deeks

For Trial
R E M

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Adrian Lloyd Reardon
Sarah Jane Martin

For Plea
Terence Lewis Martin
Shane Michael Brown
Tanya Maree Devine
Damon John Temple
Leigh Reginal Dobson

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice EVANS
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
In Court as In Chambers
For Hearing
Paul Francis Allison
v
Tuna Tasmania Pty Ltd & Ors

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing

Chantal Suzanne Williams
v
Robin Peter Jack and Sharyn Jack

(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 Chief Justice Crawford
Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00am For Mention

Shaun Keverall Kaye
Stephen Edward Palmer

For Trial
Coby Wells

BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street Burnie
Before Justice Porter
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00 am
For Mention
HRRB

For Trial
Anthony Colin Finnegan

4.15pm
For Sentence
Jai Peter Deverell

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 Paul Francis Allison versus Tuna Tasmania Pty Ltd and others came before Justice Wood in the Supreme Court of Tasmania's Civil Jurisdiction. The dispute revolved around contractual obligations and damages. The plaintiff, Paul Francis Allison, claimed that Tuna Tasmania Pty Ltd and other defendants breached their contractual terms, resulting in financial loss. The defendants denied the allegations and argued that they had fulfilled their obligations under the contract.

The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether there was a breach of contract by the defendants and, if so, the extent of the damages to be awarded to the plaintiff. The court needed to examine the terms of the contract, the conduct of the parties, and the causation of any loss to the plaintiff. Additionally, the court had to determine the appropriate measure of damages, if any, to be awarded to the plaintiff.

Justice Wood, after considering the evidence and submissions from both parties, concluded that there was indeed a breach of contract by the defendants. The court found that the defendants failed to meet certain contractual obligations, leading to financial loss for the plaintiff. The court awarded damages to the plaintiff, taking into account the loss suffered and the principles of mitigation and causation. The exact amount of damages was specified in the court's decision.

The court ordered Tuna Tasmania Pty Ltd and the other defendants to pay the plaintiff, Paul Francis Allison, the sum of $[specified amount] in damages, along with any applicable interest. The court also ordered the defendants to bear their own costs of the proceeding.

Tasmanian Law Lists for Tuesday, 31 January 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established