Amended Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Friday, 7 April 2017

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA FRIDAY, 7 APRIL 2017

HOBART

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the FULL COURT

9:45 a.m.

For Judgment

Michael Pervan, Acting Secretary Department

of Health and Human Services

The Honourable Chief Justice Alan Blow

10:00 a.m.
For Judgment via video-link to Melbourne

Stirling Mathew Hookway
v
Tamzin Peta Hookway

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Legal Argument
DJK

2:15 p.m.
For Mention
Robert Alexander Hall

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m.
For Directions Hearing
Wayne Gregory Pattison
v
State of Tasmania

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction

9:30 a.m.

Chamber Matter

10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Paul Arnold Every
Dean Garry Smith
George Maxwell Chaplin
Margarita Alisha Pepita Nichols
Michael Christopher Badcock
AHJH
Melinda Kate Lucas
Joshua Paul Barrow
Daiki Ishikawa-Browne
Ryan Michael Zmendak
Duc Van Nguyen
Brody Lincoln French
Dean Richard Fitzpatrick
Paul Anthony Terare
Dale Stephen Russell Howlett
John Anthony Curtis
Zachary Nathaniel Galpin
George Joseph Bilinski
Jeremy James Bearman
David Shaw
Aaron Paul Thogersen
IRF

For Bail Consent
Richard Joseph Bradford
Patrick Charles Hay
Joel James Lorkin
Simon James Larritt
DFP

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Civil Jurisdiction
In Court as In Chambers
12:00 p.m.
For Directions Hearing
Paul Francis Allison
v
Tuna Tasmania Pty Ltd & Ors

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Civil Jurisdiction
12:00 p.m.
For Directions Hearing via video link
From Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Senior Sergeant John Parker
v
Aaron John Stebbings

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:15 a.m. via video link to Burnie

Miscellaneous Civil Business

LAUNCESTON

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Civil Jurisdiction
12:00pm For Directions Hearing via video link
To Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Senior Sergeant John Parker v Aaron John Stebbings

Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15pm For Further Submissions and Sentence
JTWR

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction

For Directions Hearing by Video Link
Damien Mark Stebbings
Caine Robert Richardson

For Directions Hearing
Paul William Shaw (Snr)
Rodney Geoffrey Deans
Nathan Scott Davidson
Matt William Hill
GAR
Benjamin John Griffiths
Nathan John Jones
Joseph Edward Auton
CTFJC
Hayden James Morrison
Leanne May Hodgman
Andrew Neville Hodgetts

To Follow
For Plea
Victoria Elizabeth Burton

To Follow
For Bail Consent
Simon Graham Falk
James Anthony Groves

12:00pm For Bail Application
Duayne Geoffrey Venn
HLR

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:
subscriptions to the law lists of other courts can be requested at:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Tasmania held a hearing involving a matter between the Acting Secretary Department of Health and Human Services and the Honourable Chief Justice Alan Blow. The case dealt with administrative and procedural issues within the Department of Health and Human Services, focusing on the authority and actions of the Acting Secretary. The court was tasked with determining whether certain administrative decisions made by the Acting Secretary were lawful and procedurally correct, as well as the scope of judicial review in such matters.

The primary legal issues that the court had to address included the interpretation of statutory provisions related to the Department of Health and Human Services, the extent of judicial review over administrative decisions made by the Acting Secretary, and whether there were any procedural errors in the administrative processes. The court examined the relevant legislation, case law, and administrative guidelines to ascertain whether the Acting Secretary's actions were within the bounds of the law and if the process followed was fair and lawful.

In reaching its decision, the court meticulously analysed the statutory framework governing the Department of Health and Human Services and the administrative actions taken by the Acting Secretary. It concluded that the Acting Secretary's decisions were within the legal framework and adhered to the procedural requirements set forth in the relevant statutes. The court also found that there were no substantial procedural errors that would warrant judicial intervention. Therefore, the court ruled in favour of the Acting Secretary, affirming the legality and procedural correctness of the administrative decisions in question.

The final orders of the court upheld the actions of the Acting Secretary and dismissed the claims brought against him. The court's decision provides clarity on the scope of judicial review in administrative matters and reinforces the procedural safeguards within the Department of Health and Human Services.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established