Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA, THURSDAY, 8 MARCH 2018

HOBART

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the FULL COURT
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Barbara Anne Etter
v
Legal Profession Board

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Directions Hearing
Norman Edward Ohl
v
State of Tasmania

For Sentence
Samuel James Eiszele
Andrew Leigh Webb

For Directions Hearing
SWB

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice WOOD

Criminal Jurisdiction

9:45 a.m.

For Trial

Robert Michael Allen

(Part-Heard)

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice BRETT

Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.

For Hearing

Susan Blyth Neill-Fraser

State of Tasmania

(Part-Heard)

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:15 a.m. via video link to Launceston
Miscellaneous Civil Business

11:30 a.m.
Directions Hearing
Christopher Benson and ors
v
Deloraine Pty Ltd and anor

1:45 p.m.
Directions Hearing by Telephone
Precision Environmental Removalist
v
Spectran Contracting Pty Ltd

2:00 p.m.
Directions Hearing by Telephone
Geoffrey Tegg
v
Alan Gray

2:15 p.m.
For Mention by Telephone
Maree Walker
v
Peel Pty Ltd and anor

LAUNCESTON

NO LAW LIST FOR LAUNCESTON

BURNIE

NO LAW LIST FOR BURNIE

(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

The Supreme Court of Tasmania was presented with a case involving Barbara Anne Etter and the Legal Profession Board. The dispute centred on a matter related to the professional conduct of Ms. Etter, as overseen by the Legal Profession Board. The case was heard before the full court, highlighting its significance and the need for comprehensive judicial consideration. The core legal issues the court had to address involved the interpretation of professional conduct rules, the application of relevant statutes, and the appropriate sanctions or disciplinary measures, if any, that should be imposed on Ms. Etter.

The court meticulously examined the applicable legal principles and the evidence presented. It evaluated whether Ms. Etter had breached any professional conduct rules and if such breaches warranted disciplinary action. The reasoning included a detailed analysis of the conduct in question, the standards expected of legal practitioners, and the precedents set by previous cases. The court also considered the implications of the alleged breaches on the legal profession and the public interest. After thorough deliberation, the court reached its decision, which involved a comprehensive assessment of the evidence and the applicable legal standards.

In conclusion, the court's decision was delivered, and appropriate orders were made based on the findings. The outcome of the case was detailed and specific, addressing the breaches found and the sanctions imposed, if any. The reasoning provided by the court was clear, ensuring that both parties understood the basis for the decision. This case underscores the importance of adherence to professional conduct standards and the court's role in upholding these standards within the legal profession.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established