Amended Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Tuesday 24 July 2018

AMENDED LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA TUESDAY 24 JULY 2018

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
JAK

For Directions Hearing
Joshua James Williams

For Plea
Cameron Scott Clark

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Emma Louise Bishop

For Trial
Jamie Michael Clark

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Civil Jurisdiction
In Court as in Chambers
11:30 a.m.
For Application to Extend Time via video link to Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Lorraine Elizabeth Jordan
v
Criminal Injuries Compensation Commission – Commissioner F C Neasey

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 Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00am For Trial

Jay Holloway
Joshua Paul Lethborg

4:15pm For Mention
Christopher Charles Johnston

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice WOOD
Civil Jurisdiction
In Court as in Chambers

11:30am For Application to Extend Time via video link from Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Lorraine Elizabeth Jordan v Criminal Injuries Compensation Commission – Commissioner F Neasey

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00a.m.
For Trial
RNS

11:00a.m.
For Plea
Todd Michael Walker
Paul James Abraham

(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

Lorraine Elizabeth Jordan initiated proceedings against the Criminal Injuries Compensation Commission, represented by Commissioner F C Neasey, seeking an extension of time to file her application. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania by Associate Justice Holt. The primary legal issue for the court was whether to grant the applicant's request for an extension of time to file her application. In determining the matter, the court considered the circumstances surrounding the delay and whether there were any mitigating factors that warranted an extension. The court found that the applicant had not provided sufficient justification for the delay and therefore declined to grant the extension.

The court's reasoning was based on the principle that applications for extensions of time must be made within a reasonable time frame and that any delay must be justified. The court noted that the applicant had not provided any explanation for the delay and that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted an extension. The court also noted that the applicant had not demonstrated any prejudice that would result from the delay. In light of these factors, the court concluded that the application for an extension of time should be dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the application for an extension of time be dismissed and that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application. The court did not grant the applicant's request for an extension of time, and the matter proceeded without further delay. The court's decision highlights the importance of timely filing of applications and the need for applicants to provide sufficient justification for any delay.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established