Amended Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Tuesday, 27 June 2017 Summary

AMENDED LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA TUESDAY, 27 JUNE 2017

AMENDED LIST FOR LAUNCESTON

HOBART

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Civil Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
In Court as In Chambers
For Decision
Dean Flanagan
v
Claremont Village Shopping Centre & Ors

Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Hendrik Dikkenberg

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Directions Hearing
Jamie Gregory McCrossen
v
State of Tasmania

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Trent Aaron Gordon

4:15 p.m.
For Directions Hearing
Shadi Farhat
v
The State of Tasmania

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Facts and Sentence
Lee-Anne Marie Levett

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 TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00am For Mention
A Witness

To Follow
For Trial (Part-Heard)
Peter Michael Kopper

2:15pm For Mention
Duayne Geoffrey Venn

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction

4:15pm For Directions Hearing via video link from Court 7, Hobart Salamanca Place
Shadi Farhat
v
The State of Tasmania

BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie before Justice Pearce
Criminal Jurisdiction
For Trial (Part-Heard)
Christopher Charles Bond

(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

Dean Flanagan brought an action against Claremont Village Shopping Centre and others in the Supreme Court of Tasmania, seeking a resolution to a dispute involving the parties. The case was listed for decision before Justice Wood in Hobart. In a separate matter, Hendrik Dikkenberg appeared before Justice Wood for a criminal hearing scheduled for 10:00 a.m. in Court 8 at Salamanca Place. Further down the list, Jamie Gregory McCrossen had a directions hearing scheduled against the State of Tasmania before Justice Brett at 10:00 a.m. in Court 7, Salamanca Place. The court also listed Shadi Farhat's directions hearing against the State of Tasmania before Acting Justice Porter in Court 8, also at 10:00 a.m. In Launceston, Justice Tennant presided over miscellaneous civil business and a criminal mention for Peter Michael Kopper, with a trial set for 2:15 p.m. Duayne Geoffrey Venn had a directions hearing scheduled via video link from Court 7 in Hobart to Court 2 in Launceston before Justice Brett at 4:15 p.m. Lastly, in Burnie, Justice Pearce presided over a trial for Christopher Charles Bond, which was part-heard.

The court faced the task of determining the outcomes of various scheduled hearings and trials, ensuring that the legal processes were followed correctly. The decision on Dean Flanagan's case would likely hinge on the specifics of the contractual or property dispute at hand. The criminal hearings, including those for Hendrik Dikkenberg, Jamie Gregory McCrossen, and Shadi Farhat, would require the court to address the respective charges and possibly make procedural decisions or rulings. The miscellaneous civil business in Launceston would involve resolving whatever civil issues were presented. The trial of Peter Michael Kopper and the part-heard trial for Christopher Charles Bond would necessitate the court to assess the evidence and potentially deliver a verdict.

Justice Wood, Justice Brett, Acting Justice Porter, Justice Tennant, and Justice Pearce each played a role in ensuring that the legal proceedings were conducted fairly and in accordance with the law. Their decisions would likely be based on the evidence presented, legal arguments made, and applicable laws. The outcomes of these hearings and trials would contribute to the administration of justice within the Supreme Court of Tasmania. Each case would be resolved based on its unique circumstances and the merits of the arguments presented.

No final orders were specified in the text, but it is expected that the court would issue appropriate rulings and decisions following the hearings and trials.

Amended Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Tuesday, 27 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established