Amended Law Lists For the Supreme Court of Tasmania Friday, 17 September 2021HOBARTCourt 2, Salamanca Place, HobartBefore Chief Justice BLOWCivil Jurisdiction10:00a.m.For Judicial Review Tim Bullard (Secretary,

Case [2021] TASSCCourtlist 313

AMENDED LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA FRIDAY, 17 SEPTEMBER 2021

HOBART
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Judicial Review
Tim Bullard (Secretary, Department of Education)
v
Tasmania Industrial Commission

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Bail Application
Samuel David William Maple
Kye Douglas Glenn Palmer

12:30 p.m.
For Sentence
SPM

3:30 p.m.
For Mention
Simon James Balfour

For Directions Hearing
JDC

4:15 p.m.
For Directions Hearing
MKL

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention via video link from Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Kylie Ann Durban
Darren Maxwell Burge
James Allan Bennett WattsBayley Wayne Bester

Not before 12:00 p.m.
For Mention via video-link from Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Travis Anthony Mortyn

For Sentencing Hearing from Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Clinton Anthony Williams

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
10am
For plea
Christopher John Howard

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9:15a.m. via MS Teams
For R416 Directions Hearing
Ashley Scherger v Nicholas Andrew Summers

For Possession
Secure Funding Pty Ltd v Leanne Sandra Jay

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention via video-link to Launceston Reception Prison
Carl Maxwell Hall

For Mention via video-link to Risdon Prison Complex
Zane Andrew Henderson
Dylan Maxwell Cocker
Stephen James Williams
Tobias Pick
Wade Alan Mackenzie
Thomas James Aliano
Joshua Lee Scott
Jacob Eric Lonergan
Robert Craig Williams
Daniel Mark Delphine

For Mention via video-link to Ron Barwick Prison
Mark Richard Nicholas

For Mention via video-link to Mary Hutchinson Women’s Prison
Natalie Maher

For Mention via video-link to Mary Hutchinson Women’s Prison and Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Kylie Ann Durban

For Mention via video-link to Risdon Prison Complex and Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Darren Maxwell Burge

For Mention via video-link to Ron Barwick Prison and Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
James Allan Bennett Watts

For Mention via video-link to Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Bayley Wayne Bester

For Mention
Michelle Anne Hodge
Hasley James Maynard
Michael Brian Snare
Peter John Jenkins
John Gregory Peck
Stephen Thomas Heath
Zachary Anthony Cooke

For Sentencing Hearing
Tyler Jeremy Angel
Darrell Richard Wells
Joshua John Pearce

For Bail Consent
Luke Franz Bezemer
Kent Andrew Brown v Sergeant Jones
David Jonathan Holmyard
Brody Reginald Costello
Yvette Maree Hills
Craig Allan Hardstaff
WLB  
Callen Stephen Best
Aaron Neil Wesley
Dawn Anne-Marie Ward
Candida Alice Smedley
Wade Alan Mackenzie
Tryon James Page
GB     

Not before 12:00 p.m.
For Mention via video-link to Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Travis Anthony Mortyn

For Sentencing Hearing via video-link to Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Clinton Anthony Williams

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 am
For Trial
NDT
(Part-heard)

10:00 am
For Bail Application
Daniel Victor Gandini

Details
Case
[2021] TASSCCourtlist 313
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tim Bullard, Secretary of the Department of Education, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Tasmania Industrial Commission. The nature of the dispute involved the interpretation and application of certain provisions within the relevant legislation governing the Department of Education and the Industrial Commission's jurisdiction. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania before Chief Justice Blow. The primary legal issues that the court had to address centred around the interpretation of statutory provisions and the scope of the Industrial Commission's authority in relation to the specific decisions contested by the Secretary.

The court's reasoning focused on the statutory framework governing the Department of Education and the powers delegated to the Industrial Commission. Chief Justice Blow meticulously analysed the relevant legislative provisions, examining the language, context, and legislative intent behind the statutes. The court considered whether the Industrial Commission had overstepped its statutory bounds or misinterpreted the legislation in its decision-making process. After a thorough examination, the court concluded that the Industrial Commission had indeed erred in its interpretation and application of the statutory provisions, leading to an outcome that was not supported by the law.

Based on this finding, the court allowed the application for judicial review and quashed the decision of the Industrial Commission. The case was remitted back to the Industrial Commission for reconsideration in light of the court's determination. This outcome ensured that the Industrial Commission would re-evaluate its decision in accordance with the correct interpretation of the relevant legislation, thereby upholding the proper legal standards and ensuring that the Secretary's rights and the integrity of the legislative framework were preserved.

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.