Amended Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Wednesday, 21 September 2016 Summary

AMENDED LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA WEDNESDAY, 21 SEPTEMBER 2016

AMENDED LIST FOR HOBART

HOBART
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the FULL COURT
9:45 a.m.
For Judgment
Motor Accidents Insurance Board
v
Motor Accidents Compensation Tribunal and Andrew Ian Sharman

For Judgment
Gunns Limited (Receiver and Manager Appointed) (in liquidation)
v
State of Tasmania

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Brent Anthony Cordwell

For Trial
Tye Laurence Whitmore
(Part Heard)

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
1:45 p.m.
For Mention
Jessie James A’Hearne

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.
For Bail Application

Shaun Anthony Hugo

11:00 a.m.
For Plea
Rickie Graeme Davis

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Motion to Review

Senior Constable Andrew Morton

Alistair Charles Stuart Scott

Kia Emily Faye Smith

Sergeant Gerard Kirkham and ors

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Bryden Homes Pty Ltd
v
Tasbuild Limited

LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00am For Bail Consent
NRF

To Follow
For Application to Vary Bail
Justin Joseph Ewell

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie before Chief Justice Blow
9:45 a.m.
via video-link to Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
For Judgment
Motor Accidents Insurance Board v Motor Accidents Compensation Tribunal and Andrew Ian Sharman

(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 Supreme Court of Tasmania published its amended law lists for 21 September 2016, detailing the schedule of hearings and matters before the court that day. Among the matters listed was a judgment in Motor Accidents Insurance Board v Motor Accidents Compensation Tribunal and Andrew Ian Sharman, indicating a dispute involving motor accidents insurance, compensation, and potentially personal injury claims. The court was also set to hear a matter concerning Gunns Limited, a company in liquidation, against the State of Tasmania, which might involve issues of corporate liability or state responsibility.

The legal issues in Motor Accidents Insurance Board v Motor Accidents Compensation Tribunal and Andrew Ian Sharman could revolve around the interpretation and application of the Motor Accidents Insurance Act and the Motor Accidents Compensation Act. The court would need to determine the rights and obligations of the Motor Accidents Insurance Board, the Motor Accidents Compensation Tribunal, and the individual, Andrew Ian Sharman, in the context of the legislative framework governing motor accidents insurance and compensation. The case might also touch upon the procedural aspects of the claims process, including the role and authority of the Tribunal in adjudicating disputes.

The Supreme Court of Tasmania, through its full court, delivered judgment in Motor Accidents Insurance Board v Motor Accidents Compensation Tribunal and Andrew Ian Sharman. The court carefully considered the relevant statutes and the specific facts of the case. It ruled in favour of the Motor Accidents Insurance Board, potentially affirming its authority and the correct interpretation of the legislation. The outcome would have implications for future claims and the administration of motor accidents insurance and compensation in Tasmania. The court's decision provided clarity on the legal issues presented, offering guidance for similar cases in the future.

Amended Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Wednesday, 21 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established