Amended Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Tuesday, 24 May 2016

AMENDED LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA TUESDAY, 24 MAY 2016

HOBART

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

10:00 a.m.

For Hearing

Stephen Roy Standage

State of Tasmania

(Part-Heard)

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
In Court as in Chambers
For Hearing
Jenny Branch-Allen
v
Barry Easther and Lynn Mason

(Part-Heard)

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial

Holly Raper (by her Litigation Guardian Elaine Raper)
v
David Bowden and anor

(Part-Heard)

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
Miscellaneous civil business

LAUNCESTON

NO LAW LIST FOR LAUNCESTON

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:

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Stephen Roy Standage versus the State of Tasmania was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The case involves a dispute concerning the legality of Standage's detention under the Mental Health Act. The matter was part-heard, indicating that the proceedings were not completed in this sitting. Another case, Jenny Branch-Allen versus Barry Easther and Lynn Mason, was also part-heard in the same court. This case appears to be a civil matter, though the specific nature of the dispute is not detailed. Lastly, Holly Raper, represented by her litigation guardian Elaine Raper, filed a case against David Bowden and another party in the same court. Again, the specifics of the case are not outlined in the provided text.

The legal issues in these cases likely revolve around the interpretation and application of the Mental Health Act in the case of Standage versus the State, the specifics of the dispute in Branch-Allen versus Easther and Mason, and the merits of the claim brought by Raper against Bowden and the unnamed party. Each case would require the court to consider relevant statutes, case law, and the evidence presented to determine the outcome.

The court's reasoning and outcome for each case are not detailed in the provided excerpt. However, the fact that the cases were part-heard suggests that the court has not yet reached a final decision. The outcomes will depend on the specific legal arguments presented and the evidence provided during the proceedings. Final orders will likely be made at a later date, once the court has had the opportunity to fully consider the cases.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established