Amended Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Wednesday, 7 September 2016

AMENDED LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA WEDNESDAY, 7 SEPTEMBER 2016

HOBART

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before the Full Court
9:45 a.m.
For Judgment
Geoffrey Arthur Spaulding
v
Troy Leslie Eirth

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Blake Cameron McPherson

For Trial
Jeffrey Mark Price

For Directions Hearing
Wayne Gregory Pattison

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
1:15 p.m.
For Mention
Hendrik Dikkenberg

For Sentence
Allan Noel Lesina

For Application
Justin Craig Cleaver

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.

For Trial
Angela Maree Leahy
(Part-heard)

2:15 p.m.
For Bail Consent
Nicole Lee Sampey

4:00 p.m.
For Further Submissions
Antony Brown

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Commonwealth Bank of Australia
v
Phillip Watts and anor

Phillip Watts and anor
v
Commonwealth Bank of Australia

4:30 p.m.
Directions Hearing by Telephone
Garald McDougall and anor
v
Colin Ritson and ors

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30am For Trial (Part-Heard)
LAP

4:15pm For Application to Vary Bail (Part-Heard)
Jay Allen Charles Reed

To Follow
For Bail Application (Part-Heard)
Debbie Hodkinson

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice ESTCOURT
12:30pm
For Bail Consent
Harley John Parr

For Legal Argument

Christopher James Harris

(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 case of Geoffrey Arthur Spaulding v Troy Leslie Eirth was listed for judgment before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The nature of the dispute was not detailed in the amended law lists, but it is evident that the matter had reached the stage of judgment following a hearing. The case was heard in the Hobart Court at Salamanca Place.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide are not explicitly stated in the amended law lists. However, given the stage of the case, the court would have been tasked with considering the evidence and arguments presented during the trial to determine the outcome. The Full Court, comprising multiple judges, would have collectively assessed the merits of the case, applying relevant laws and legal principles to reach a decision.

The court's reasoning and outcome were not provided in the amended law lists. The Full Court would have deliberated on the case, potentially considering issues such as the admissibility of evidence, the credibility of witnesses, and the application of legal principles to the facts of the case. The outcome would have been communicated in a subsequent judgment document, which was not part of the amended law lists.

If the case required further orders, they would have been detailed in the subsequent judgment. The amended law lists only provided information about the listing of the case for judgment, without revealing the specifics of the court's decision or any further orders.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established