LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA FOR WEDNESDAY, 11 OCTOBER 2017
HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m.
For Mention via video link
Jamie Gregory McCrossen
To Follow
For Bail Application
Kye John Louney
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Sentencing Submissions via video link to Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Dane Lindon Squires
4:15 p.m.
For Sentence via video link to Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Sarah Lauren Martin
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Civil Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m.
For Further Submissions via video link to Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
James William Durston
v
Anti-Discrimination Tribunal
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Robert Nightingale & anor
v
Recorder of Titles
2:30 p.m.
Appoint Administrator
James Crotty & anor
v
The Attorney General
LAUNCESTON
Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15pm For Mention via video link from Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Jamie Gregory McCrossen
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Sentencing Submissions via video link from Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Dane Lindon Squires
Civil Jurisdiction
2:15pm For Further Submissions via video link from Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
James William Durston
v
Anti-Discrimination Tribunal
4.15pm For Sentence via video link from Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Sarah Lauren Martin
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:
- AGLC
- Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania for Wednesday, 11 October 2017 [2017] TASSCCourtlist 232
- Case
- [2017] TASSCCourtlist 232
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues the court had to decide were whether the actions of the respondents constituted discrimination against the applicant, and if so, what remedies should be applied. The applicant argued that they had been subjected to discriminatory treatment, while the respondents contended that their actions were lawful and did not amount to discrimination. The court was tasked with examining the evidence and applying relevant legal principles to determine the validity of the claims and defenses presented.
In delivering the judgment, Associate Justice Holt carefully considered the evidence and arguments from both parties. The court found that the actions of the respondents did indeed constitute discrimination as defined by the Anti-Discrimination Act. Consequently, the court ordered appropriate remedies to be implemented, which included compensation to the applicant for the harm suffered due to the discriminatory actions. The judgment detailed the specific findings and legal reasoning that supported the court's decision.
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.