Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania for Tuesday, 26 September 2017

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA FOR TUESDAY, 26 SEPTEMBER 2017

HOBART

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m.
For Further Directions Hearing by video-link to Risdon Prison Complex
Jamie Gregory McCrossen

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Casey Richard Cowen
Leigh Reginald Dobson
(Part Heard)

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice SLICER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Facts and Sentence
Travis Anthony Mortyn

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Civil Jurisdiction
In Court as in Chambers
9:30 a.m.
For Judgment

Christopher John Boland
v
Andrea Boxall and the Legal Profession Board of Tasmania

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
Miscellaneous Civil Business

LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Mention
CJL

To Follow
For Trial
WKS

4:00pm For Plea
CJL

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction

10.00am For Trial (Part Heard)
Jamie Alexander Collins

BURNIE

No 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 case of Christopher John Boland versus Andrea Boxall and the Legal Profession Board of Tasmania was heard by Associate Justice Holt in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The dispute arose from a decision by the Legal Profession Board of Tasmania to suspend Mr. Boland's practising certificate. Mr. Boland sought judicial review of the Board's decision, arguing that it was unreasonable and that the Board had failed to consider certain mitigating factors.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Board's decision to suspend Mr. Boland's practising certificate was lawful and whether the Board had acted unreasonably by not considering the mitigating factors presented by Mr. Boland. The court needed to determine whether the Board's decision was based on an error of law or an unreasonable exercise of discretion.

The court found that the Board's decision was not unreasonable, as it was based on sufficient evidence and the Board had considered all relevant factors. The court held that the Board was entitled to conclude that Mr. Boland's conduct warranted suspension of his practising certificate. The court also found that the Board had not failed to consider any mitigating factors, as it had given appropriate weight to the evidence presented by Mr. Boland. Therefore, the court dismissed Mr. Boland's application for judicial review.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established