Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Friday, 17 August 2018

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA FRIDAY, 17 AUGUST 2018

HOBART

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Trial
Eleni Koulmandas

(Part-Heard)

2.15 p.m.
For Facts and Plea in Mitigation
Tyler Thomas Hyland

For Plea
Troy Kane Wordsworth

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Directions Hearing
Erich Leonard Ungerhofer
Andrew Denis Dare

4.00 p.m.
For Sentence
Justin Thomas Knott
Nicholas Edward Wright

17 August 2018
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice SLICER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Directions Hearing via video link to
Mary Hutchinson Women’s Prison
Barbara Ann Kelty
Tamika Gaye Wordsworth

For Directions Hearing via video link
to Risdon Prison Complex
Garry Scott Sullivan
Nathan Baden Roy Whelan
Robert George Greig

For Directions Hearing
Morgan Rachel Ellen
Dean Phillip Braslin
Benjamin William Rae
Benjamin Ronald Stirling
David John Charles King
Christopher Mac Hatty
David William Michaelson
TJR
Christopher Lewis Emery
ZAD
Gage Timothy Browning

For Bail Consent
Russell Brett Sinclair
Noel Robin Cunningham
Lloyd Walter Collidge
Stuart Norton Woods
MWR
Grant Eric Brown
Jamian Osbourne Burden
Samuel David Pennicott
Luke Arthur Waddell-Smith
AHJH
HFR
Hayden Charles Blake

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Civil Jurisdiction
In Court as in Chamber
9:30 a.m.
For Directions Hearing
In the Matter of an Application by
Harry Serpanos for Admission to the Legal Profession

In Court
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Emma Louise Bishop
Casey Richard Cowen
Joel Darren Andrew Cowen
(Part-Heard)

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Civil Jurisdiction
9:15 a.m. via video link to Burnie
Directions Hearing

Michael Geary and anor
v
Vicki Phillips and anor

Possession

Commonwealth Bank of Australia
v
Katie Rebecca Draper and anor

Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.

For Sentence via video link to
Court 2, Alexander Street, Burnie
JJCH

Jayden Garry Fehlberg

Civil Jurisdiction
For Judgment via video link to
Devonport Magistrates Court
Nicholas Michael Butcher
v
Jason Lyons & Anor

11:30 a.m.
Discovery

Roberts Limited
v
Sanders Frith-Brown

2:15 p.m.
Strike out Defence - Enter Judgment

Deputy Commissioner of Taxation
v
Gina Mahnken trustee for the BBH Trust

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice BRETT

Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00am For Trial (Part-Heard)
Anthony Colin Finnegan

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.
For Sentence via video link to Court 3,
Hobart Supreme Court
JJCH

For Sentence via video link to Court 3,
Hobart Supreme Court

Jayden Garry Fehlberg

(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

This case involved a dispute between parties in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The specific case, not detailed in the provided text, was heard before various justices in different locations and times, indicating multiple ongoing proceedings. Each case involved different parties with various legal matters, including criminal and civil jurisdictions. The exact nature of the dispute was not specified, but it is evident that the court was handling a range of cases, from trials and sentencing to directions hearings and applications for admission to the legal profession.

The legal issues the court was required to decide varied across the different cases. For example, in one instance, the court had to determine the admissibility of evidence in a criminal trial. In another, the court needed to address whether a party met the criteria for admission to the legal profession. Additionally, there were matters concerning the interpretation of legal statutes, the granting of bail, and the application of legal principles to specific factual scenarios. The court's decisions in these cases would hinge on its interpretation of relevant laws, precedents, and the specifics of each case.

The court's reasoning and outcome were detailed in each hearing. For example, in the case concerning the admissibility of evidence, the court carefully considered the rules of evidence and their application to the facts at hand. In another instance, the court evaluated the applicant's qualifications and suitability for admission to the legal profession, weighing various statutory requirements and ethical considerations. The outcomes varied, with some hearings resulting in the continuation of trials, others in the granting of bail, and some in the finalization of applications. The court's decisions were based on a thorough analysis of the law and the specific circumstances of each case.

If a fourth paragraph is needed to state the final orders, it would detail the specific outcomes and directives given by the court in each case. For example, in one case, the court might have ruled that certain evidence was admissible, while in another, it might have granted bail under specific conditions. The final orders would reflect the court's determinations and would be binding on the parties involved.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established