LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA, FRIDAY, 13 NOVEMBER 2020
HOBART
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m.
For Directions Hearing
Jacqueline Louise King
v
Neil Patrick Bigg as personal representative of
the estate of the late Stephen James Atkinson
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
1:00 p.m
For Bail Application via video-link to Court 1, Burnie
Jack Daniels McKenzie
(Part-heard)
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m.
For Mention
Tye Paul Silver
Cheyenne Margaret McGuire
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Sentencing Submissions
Shannon James Duffy
(Part-heard)
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9:15a.m. via video link to Alexander Street, Burnie
For Directions Hearing
Allan Peter Ralph v The Recorder of Titles
For Directions Hearing
Paul Mantje v The State of Tasmania and ors
For Directions Hearing
Justin Kernan v Slater & Gordon and ors
For Directions Hearing
Bonita Jenkins v Christopher Bartlett and anor
For Directions Hearing
Noreen Yvonne Vanderfeen v Jeanette Mary Richardson
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
09:15a.m.
For Trial
Christopher Brendan Keil
(part-heard)
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
1:00 p.m
For Bail Application via video-link from Court 1, Hobart
Jack Daniels McKenzie
(Part-heard)
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9:15a.m. via video link from Court 3
Salamanca Place Hobart
For Directions Hearing
Allan Peter Ralph v The Recorder of Titles
For Directions Hearing
Paul Mantje v The State of Tasmania and ors
For Directions Hearing
Justin Kernan v Slater & Gordon and ors
For Directions Hearing
Bonita Jenkins v Christopher Bartlett and anor
For Directions Hearing
Details
- Case
- [2020] TASSCCourtlist 1112
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Jacqueline Louise King has filed a claim against Neil Patrick Bigg, who is the personal representative of the estate of Stephen James Atkinson, deceased, in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The nature of the dispute is not detailed in the extract provided. The hearing was conducted before Chief Justice BLOW and pertained to directions for the case. The legal issues that needed to be addressed included determining the appropriate procedural steps to be taken in the case, and possibly defining the scope of the claims and defences to be presented.
The court's reasoning and outcome from the directions hearing were not explicitly detailed in the text. However, the nature of such hearings typically involve the court providing guidance to the parties on the procedural aspects of the case, such as the exchange of documents, scheduling of further hearings, and potentially addressing any preliminary issues that may arise. The court would likely have outlined a timetable for the case and addressed any procedural disputes between the parties. The final orders would have been made to reflect the court's directions for the continuation of the case.
If a fourth paragraph is needed to state the final orders, it would detail the specific procedural steps and deadlines set by the court for the parties to follow. This could include the timeframes for the exchange of evidence, the scheduling of further hearings, and any other procedural mandates necessary for the efficient progression of the case.
The court's reasoning and outcome from the directions hearing were not explicitly detailed in the text. However, the nature of such hearings typically involve the court providing guidance to the parties on the procedural aspects of the case, such as the exchange of documents, scheduling of further hearings, and potentially addressing any preliminary issues that may arise. The court would likely have outlined a timetable for the case and addressed any procedural disputes between the parties. The final orders would have been made to reflect the court's directions for the continuation of the case.
If a fourth paragraph is needed to state the final orders, it would detail the specific procedural steps and deadlines set by the court for the parties to follow. This could include the timeframes for the exchange of evidence, the scheduling of further hearings, and any other procedural mandates necessary for the efficient progression of the case.
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.