Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania for Wednesday, 2 August 2017

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA FOR WEDNESDAY, 2 AUGUST 2017

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Matthew Allan Ward

For Trial
Stuart Malcom Allen
(Part-Heard)

4:15 p.m.
For Sentence by video-link to Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
JPRB

For Sentence
Dale Reginald Loone

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.

For Trial
DBL
(Part Heard)

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.

For Bail Application

James Michael Fitzgerald
Nathan Alen Denny-Garrett
Michael Miller

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
Dismiss Action
Juliet Fisher
v
Susie Riddoch

2:15 p.m.
Security for Costs
Jane Holden
v
The State of Tasmania

LAUNCESTON
Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm For Sentence by video-link from Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
JPRB

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Mention
A Witness
Jamie Lee Vimpany

To Follow
For Trial (Part-Heard)
Carly Ann Dekkers
Christopher John Humphreys
Malcolm Joshua Mayne
Caine Robert Richardson
Sean Gregory Richardson
Matthew Luke Williams

4:00pm For Plea
John Selwyn Statton

BURNIE

No list available at time of publication.

(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

Juliet Fisher commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of Tasmania against Susie Riddoch seeking a declaration and an injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff’s use of a parcel of land. The matter was heard by Justice Estcourt who was tasked with determining whether the plaintiff had established a sufficient case to warrant the grant of interlocutory relief. The legal issues before the court included the plaintiff's entitlement to a declaration that she had an easement over the defendant’s land, as well as the plaintiff's right to an injunction to prevent the defendant from interfering with her use of the land. Justice Estcourt found that the plaintiff had failed to establish a sufficient case to warrant the grant of interlocutory relief. The court determined that the plaintiff had not demonstrated a strong case on the merits or shown that irreparable harm would occur if the relief was not granted. As a result, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application. The final orders of the court were that the plaintiff's action be dismissed, with the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of the application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established