Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Friday 10 July 2020 Summary

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA FRIDAY 10 JULY 2020

HOBART

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:00am
For Directions Hearing via telephone
Shanyin Liu v Lottham Mining Pty Ltd

9:15am
For Mention via video link
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Frederick William Hunn

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice Brett
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Directions

Barry James Ambrose Cook
Blaise Christopher Baddeley
Jackson Elijah Mansfield
Brett Knox
Garry Matthews

For Bail Application
Mark Anthony Dillon

11:30am
For Sentence
Bailey Dennis Roberts

For Bail Application
Sean Patrick Mahoney
Colin Anthony Jacobson

2:15pm
For Directions
Robert Maxwell Brown
JSF

For Bail Variation
Cameron Scott Clark

For Bail Application
Ricky John Polglase

2:30pm
For Bail Application
Todd Michael Walker

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Preliminary proceedings applications

10 am

ANGEL, Tyler
S H

2.15 pm

LAWRIE, Jordan

LAUNCESTON

NO LAW LIST

BURNIE

NO LAW LIST

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Tasmania heard several matters on the 10th of July 2020. The civil jurisdiction case of Liu v Lottham Mining Pty Ltd was scheduled for a directions hearing. This case involves a dispute between the plaintiff, Shanyin Liu, and the defendant, Lottham Mining Pty Ltd. The nature of the dispute is not specified in the court list, but it is likely to involve a contractual or tortious claim. The directions hearing would have aimed to outline the procedural steps and timelines for the case. The criminal jurisdiction cases involved a range of matters, including bail applications and sentencing. For example, the case of Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Hunn was scheduled for a mention, which may have been a preliminary hearing to determine the status of the proceedings.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide in the civil case of Liu v Lottham Mining Pty Ltd were likely to revolve around the interpretation of the contract or the identification of any breaches of duty by the defendant. The court would have needed to consider the evidence presented by both parties and apply the relevant legal principles to determine whether the plaintiff was entitled to any relief. In the criminal cases, the court would have needed to consider the bail applications and determine whether the accused persons should be released on bail or remain in custody pending trial. The court would have also needed to consider the appropriate sentence for Roberts, who was due to be sentenced.

The court's reasoning and outcome for the civil case of Liu v Lottham Mining Pty Ltd are not specified in the court list. However, it is likely that the court would have provided directions to the parties on how to proceed with the case. In the criminal cases, the court would have considered the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defence, as well as any mitigating or aggravating factors, in determining whether to grant bail or impose a sentence. The final orders for the civil case are not specified in the court list, but the court may have made orders regarding the procedural steps and timelines for the case. In the criminal cases, the final orders would have been the outcome of the bail applications and the sentence imposed on Roberts.

Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Friday 10 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established