Amended Law Lists For the Supreme Court Of Tasmania Tuesday, 6 July 2021hobart Summary

AMENDED LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA TUESDAY, 6 JULY 2021

HOBART

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Civil Jurisdiction
3:45pm
For Judgment via video link from Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
The State of Tasmania
v
David Rattigan

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice MARSHALL
Criminal Jurisdiction
09:30a.m.
For Re-Sentence via video-link to Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston and to Risdon Prison Complex
Jordan John Lawrie

10:00am
For directions hearing
Kylie Louise Wise

For Trial (part-heard)
JPP

PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15p.m.
For Sentencing Submissions via video-link from Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston and to Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Danelle Maree Barker

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9:30a.m.
For Directions
Robert John Anders v Calvary Health Care Tasmania

Directions Hearing
Noel GRIFFITHS v Dr David PENN

For Failure to Comply
Campbell Sydney McDougall and anor v JSA Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd

12:00p.m.
For Mention
Gary HIPPMAN as Executor of the Estate of the Late Lawrence William Hippman v Carl Melton Hippman

For Mention
Sheryl Ann Oakley by her Litigation Guardian Jenifer Anne Oakley and anor v Sharon Lee Devine as Executor of the Will of Kenneth David Oakley

For Mention
CHAMBER MATTER

2:15p.m. via MS Teams
For Direction Hearing
CHAMBER MATTER

LAUNCESTON

Court 2, Cameron Street, LauncestonBefore Justice PEARCE
Civil Jurisdiction
3:45pm
For Judgment via video link to Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
The State of Tasmania
v
David Rattigan
Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Acting Justice MARSHALL
Criminal Jurisdiction
09:30a.m.
For Mention via video-link from Court 1,
Salamanca Place, Hobart and to Risdon Prison Complex
Jordan John Lawrie

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
09:30a.m.
For Trial
Glenn William Barnard
(part-heard)

4:00p.m.
For Directions Hearing
Stewart Ashley Martin

4:15p.m.
For Sentencing Submissions via video-link to Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie and to PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Danelle Maree Barker

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15p.m.
For Sentencing Submissions via video-link from Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston and to PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Danelle Maree Barker

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Tasmania presided over a range of civil and criminal matters, some of which were conducted via video link to facilitate participation from different locations. Notably, the court heard a matter involving the State of Tasmania against David Rattigan, which was presided over by Justice Pearce in Hobart. The nature of the dispute was not specified in the text, but it involved a judgment hearing, likely related to a civil or administrative law issue.

The legal issues that the court needed to address were varied and included directions hearings, re-sentencing, and sentencing submissions. In particular, the court had to determine the appropriate legal proceedings and outcomes for the cases involving Rattigan, Jordan John Lawrie, Danelle Maree Barker, and others. The court also needed to consider the implications of non-compliance and failure to comply with court orders in the cases of Noel Griffiths v Dr David Penn and Campbell Sydney McDougall and another v JSA Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd.

Justice Pearce and Acting Justice Marshall, among others, presided over the hearings and applied relevant legal principles and precedents to reach their decisions. In the case of Rattigan, the court likely considered evidence and arguments presented by both parties before delivering its judgment. The court also had to balance the rights and obligations of the parties involved in the other cases, ensuring that justice was served according to the law. Ultimately, the court's reasoning and outcome were aimed at resolving the disputes in a fair and just manner, in line with the legal principles applicable to each case.

The final orders of the court were not specified in the text, but they would have addressed the legal issues and disputes raised in each case. The court would have provided directions, judgments, and sentences as appropriate, taking into account the evidence, arguments, and legal principles applicable to each matter.

Amended Law Lists For the Supreme Court Of Tasmania Tuesday, 6 July 2021hobart

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established