Amended Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Monday, 3 April 2017

AMENDED LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA MONDAY, 3 APRIL 2017

AMENDED LIST FOR HOBART

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention by Video-Link
Phillip Maxwell Jones

For Mention
Paul Arnold Every
DJK

For Bail Consent
Lewan Patrick Lehman
Darren James Barwick

For Trial
Kelly Raema Mundy Page
Michelle Lee Arnott
(Part-Heard)

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction

10:45 a.m.
For Mention
WLNH

For Trial
David John Charles King
(Part Heard)

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction

4:15 p.m.
For Further Submissions/Sentence by Video Link from Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Benjamin Robert Joseph

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
In Court as in Chambers
4:15 p.m.
For Directions Hearings via video-link to Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Kurt Von Stalheim
v
The Anti-Discrimination Tribunal

Kurt Von Stalheim
v
The Anti-Discrimination Tribunal and Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Civil Jurisdiction
4:00 p.m.
For Submissions as to Orders
Tasmanian Perpetual Trustees Limited
v
Her Majesty’s Attorney-General for the State of Tasmania

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Civil Jurisdiction
11:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Senior Sergeant John Parker
v
Christopher Mark Shaw

3:30 p.m.
For Directions Hearing via Telephone
Anthony John (Jon) Wheaton
v
Constable Annette Wilson and Constable Peter McKenna

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
Strike out Statement of Claim
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation
v
Shane Gill

2:15 p.m.
Directions Hearing by Telephone
Chamer Pty Ltd and anor
v
Caltas Pty Ltd and anor

LAUNCESTON
Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
In Court as in Chambers

4:15pm For Directions Hearing via video-link to Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Kurt Von Stalheim v The Anti-Discrimination Tribunal
Kurt Von Stalheim v The Anti-Discrimination Tribunal & Anor.

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00am For Mention
Daniel Mark Delphine

For Mention by Video Link
Adam Maxwell Cox

For Directions Hearing by Video Link
Nathan Henry John Riley
Sean Gregory Richardson
Matthew Luke Williams
Christopher John Humphreys

For Directions Hearing
Ricky Lee Smith-Towns
Malcolm Joshua Mayne

10:30am For Trial
SG

4:00pm For Bail Application
Andrew Rex Gleeson

4:15pm For Further Submissions/ Sentence by Video Link to Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Benjamin Robert Joseph

BURNIE

No list for Burnie.

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Amended Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania, dated Monday, 3 April 2017, outline the proceedings scheduled for the day, involving both criminal and civil cases. Various courts in Hobart and Launceston are scheduled to hear mentions, trials, bail applications, and directions hearings. Notable cases include a trial for Kelly Raema Mundy Page and Michelle Lee Arnott, and a directions hearing for Kurt Von Stalheim against The Anti-Discrimination Tribunal.

The court was required to determine several legal issues related to the cases listed, including the admissibility of evidence in criminal cases, the granting of bail, and the interpretation of statutory provisions in civil matters. The court needed to apply relevant laws and precedents to these issues, ensuring that the rights of the defendants and plaintiffs were protected while also upholding the rule of law.

The court's reasoning and outcome varied depending on the specific case. For example, in the criminal trial of Kelly Raema Mundy Page and Michelle Lee Arnott, the court considered the evidence presented and the applicable legal standards to determine whether the accused were guilty of the charges against them. In the civil case of Kurt Von Stalheim v The Anti-Discrimination Tribunal, the court assessed the arguments made by both parties and made a decision based on the evidence and legal principles relevant to the case.

The final orders were not explicitly stated in the law lists, but the outcomes of the hearings and trials would have been communicated to the parties involved. The decisions made by the court would have been based on the specific facts and legal issues presented in each case, and the court's role was to ensure that justice was served in accordance with the law.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established