LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA FRIDAY, 17 SEPTEMBER 2021
HOBART
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Judicial Review
Tim Bullard (Secretary, Department of Education)
v
Tasmania Industrial Commission
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Bail Application
Samuel David William Maple
Kye Douglas Glenn Palmer
12:30 p.m.
For Sentence
SPM
3:30 p.m.
For Mention
Simon James Balfour
For Directions Hearing
JDC
4:15 p.m.
For Directions Hearing
MKL
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention via video link from
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Darren Maxwell Burge
James Allan Bennett WattsBayley Wayne Bester
Travis Anthony Mortyn
Not before 12:00 p.m.
For Sentencing Hearing via video-link from
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Clinton Anthony Williams
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
10am
For plea
Christopher John Howard
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9:15a.m. via MS Teams
For R416 Directions Hearing
Ashley Scherger v Nicholas Andrew Summers
For Possession
Secure Funding Pty Ltd v Leanne Sandra Jay
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention via video-link to Risdon Prison Complex
Zane Andrew Henderson
Dylan Maxwell Cocker
Stephen James Williams
Tobias Pick
Wade Alan Mackenzie
Thomas James Aliano
Joshua Lee Scott
Jacob Eric Lonergan
Robert Craig Williams
Daniel Mark Delphine
For Mention via video-link to Ron Barwick Prison
Mark Richard Nicholas
For Mention via video-link to Mary Hutchinson Women’s Prison
Natalie Maher
Kylie Ann Durban
For Mention via video-link to Risdon Prison Complex and Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Darren Maxwell Burge
For Mention via video-link to Ron Barwick Prison and Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
James Allan Bennett Watts
For Mention via video-link to Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Bayley Wayne Bester
Travis Anthony Mortyn
For Mention
Aaron Neil Wesley
Michelle Anne Hodge
Hasley James Maynard
Michael Brian Snare
Peter John Jenkins
John Gregory Peck
Stephen Thomas Heath
Zachary Anthony Cooke
Carl Maxwell Hall
For Sentencing Hearing
Tyler Jeremy Angel
Darrell Richard Wells
Joshua John Pearce
Craig Allan Hardstaff
For Mention
Kent Andrew Brown
v
Sergeant Jones
For Bail Consent
Luke Franz Bezemer
David Jonathan Holmyard
Brody Reginald Costello
Yvette Maree Hills
WLB
Callen Stephen Best
Dawn Anne-Marie Ward
Candida Alice Smedley
Wade Alan Mackenzie
Tryon James Page
GB
Not before 12:00 p.m.
For Sentencing Hearing via video-link to Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Clinton Anthony Williams
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 am
For Trial
NDT
(Part-heard)
10:00 am
For Bail Application
Daniel Victor Gandini
Details
- Case
- [2021] TASSCCourtlist 312
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Tim Bullard, acting in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Education, filed an application for judicial review against the Tasmania Industrial Commission. The dispute centred on a decision made by the Commission, the specifics of which were not detailed in the court's summary. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania, before Chief Justice Blow.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the decision made by the Tasmania Industrial Commission was unlawful or otherwise beyond its jurisdiction. This required the court to examine the basis and legality of the Commission's decision, ensuring it adhered to relevant statutory provisions and principles of administrative law. The court had to determine if there were any errors in the interpretation of the law, procedural unfairness, or if the decision was made without proper authority.
In delivering the judgment, Chief Justice Blow considered the arguments presented by both parties and examined the relevant statutory framework and case law. The court found that the Tasmania Industrial Commission had indeed acted beyond its jurisdiction in making the decision in question. Consequently, the court granted the application for judicial review, quashing the Commission's decision. The matter was remitted back to the Commission for reconsideration in light of the court's findings.
The final orders of the court included the quashing of the decision made by the Tasmania Industrial Commission and the direction that the matter be reconsidered by the Commission in accordance with the court's judgment.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the decision made by the Tasmania Industrial Commission was unlawful or otherwise beyond its jurisdiction. This required the court to examine the basis and legality of the Commission's decision, ensuring it adhered to relevant statutory provisions and principles of administrative law. The court had to determine if there were any errors in the interpretation of the law, procedural unfairness, or if the decision was made without proper authority.
In delivering the judgment, Chief Justice Blow considered the arguments presented by both parties and examined the relevant statutory framework and case law. The court found that the Tasmania Industrial Commission had indeed acted beyond its jurisdiction in making the decision in question. Consequently, the court granted the application for judicial review, quashing the Commission's decision. The matter was remitted back to the Commission for reconsideration in light of the court's findings.
The final orders of the court included the quashing of the decision made by the Tasmania Industrial Commission and the direction that the matter be reconsidered by the Commission in accordance with the court's judgment.
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.