AMENDED LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA WEDNESDAY, 25 MARCH 2020
HOBART
In Chambers
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Telephone Hearing
Leonard Fernandez
v
Legal Profession Board of Tasmania
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For directions hearing via video link
Duc Van Nguyen
Dylan Roy Bramich
John Julius Boles
2:15p.m.
For Bail Application
Harrison Frederick Reynolds
Jed Curtis Leggett
Timothy Lee Clark
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15p.m.
For Directions hearing via video link to
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Saxon John Horton
For Directions Hearing
Anthony John Stephens Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
11:00a.m.
For Plea via Video Link to Court 1,
Cameron Street, Launceston
Ricky Lee Smith-Towns
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Sentencing Submissions
Emma Louise Wilson
For Plea via Video Link
Curtly James Hodge
11:00a.m.
For Plea via Video Link to Court 8,
Salamanca Place, Hobart
Ricky Lee Smith-Towns
2:15p.m.
For Directions Hearing via Telephone
Jarom James Triffitt
Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15p.m.
For Directions Hearing and Bail
Application via Video Link
Luke Anthony Shaw
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
For Directions Hearing via video link from
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Saxon John Horton
Details
- Case
- [2020] TASSCCourtlist 117
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Leonard Fernandez has brought a case against the Legal Profession Board of Tasmania before Justice Brett of the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The dispute revolves around the Board's decision to suspend Mr. Fernandez's practising certificate, which was issued on the basis of certain misconduct findings. The court was tasked with determining whether the Board's decision was lawful, reasonable, and justified.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the Board had acted within its statutory powers and whether its decision to suspend Mr. Fernandez's practising certificate was appropriate. The court had to consider the relevant statutory provisions governing the Board's powers and whether the Board had followed proper procedures. Additionally, the court examined whether the Board's decision was proportionate to the alleged misconduct and whether there were any errors in the findings of fact or law.
Justice Brett, in delivering the judgment, meticulously reviewed the Board's decision and the evidence presented. The court found that the Board had indeed acted within its statutory powers, and the decision to suspend Mr. Fernandez's practising certificate was lawful and reasonable. The court also noted that the Board had followed proper procedures and that the decision was proportionate to the alleged misconduct. The judge concluded that the Board's decision was justified based on the evidence and the applicable legal standards.
The final orders of the court were that the Board's decision to suspend Mr. Fernandez's practising certificate was upheld. The court dismissed Mr. Fernandez's appeal, finding no grounds for setting aside the Board's decision. The suspension of Mr. Fernandez's practising certificate remains in effect.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the Board had acted within its statutory powers and whether its decision to suspend Mr. Fernandez's practising certificate was appropriate. The court had to consider the relevant statutory provisions governing the Board's powers and whether the Board had followed proper procedures. Additionally, the court examined whether the Board's decision was proportionate to the alleged misconduct and whether there were any errors in the findings of fact or law.
Justice Brett, in delivering the judgment, meticulously reviewed the Board's decision and the evidence presented. The court found that the Board had indeed acted within its statutory powers, and the decision to suspend Mr. Fernandez's practising certificate was lawful and reasonable. The court also noted that the Board had followed proper procedures and that the decision was proportionate to the alleged misconduct. The judge concluded that the Board's decision was justified based on the evidence and the applicable legal standards.
The final orders of the court were that the Board's decision to suspend Mr. Fernandez's practising certificate was upheld. The court dismissed Mr. Fernandez's appeal, finding no grounds for setting aside the Board's decision. The suspension of Mr. Fernandez's practising certificate remains in effect.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.