Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Friday, 2 December 2016

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA FRIDAY, 2 DECEMBER 2016

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Bail Consent
Lucas William Gatehouse

For Trial
Kyam Keith Broadby
Brent Anthony Cordwell

11:30 a.m.
For Mention
A Witness

4:00 p.m.
For Bail Application
Owen Ken Taylor

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Blake Cameron McPherson

For Facts and Plea in Mitigation
Zachariah Angus Denwer-Ripper

For Bail Application
EMB

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.

For Trial

Jane Elizabeth Holden

The State of Tasmania

(Part-Heard)

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:15 a.m. via video link to Burnie
Miscellaneous Civil Business

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Mention
Christopher John Humphreys

To Follow
For Bail Application
Corey Mitchell Gesler

To Follow
For Trial (Part-Heard)
PDW

BURNIE

No list for Burie

(Note: Initials are used where publication of a person's name is not permitted by law.)

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:

Email subscriptions to the law lists of other courts can be requested at:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, a matter was heard on the 2nd of December, 2016, involving Jane Elizabeth Holden as the plaintiff against the State of Tasmania as the defendant. The case was categorised under civil jurisdiction and was part-heard, indicating that it was in the midst of its trial proceedings. This case centred around an issue where the plaintiff sought a remedy or compensation from the State of Tasmania, though the specifics of the claim are not provided in the text.

The legal issues before the court involved interpreting the relevant laws that apply to the plaintiff's claims against the State, assessing the validity of the plaintiff's arguments, and determining the appropriate remedy or compensation, if any, to be awarded. The court had to consider whether the State of Tasmania was liable under the circumstances presented and, if so, to what extent. The court's decision would hinge on a thorough analysis of the evidence presented and the application of relevant legal principles.

In its reasoning, the court likely examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, applying the relevant legal standards and precedents to the case at hand. The court would have considered the merits of the plaintiff's claims and the defence put forward by the State of Tasmania. Ultimately, the court would have reached a decision based on its assessment of the facts and the law. However, the specific outcome of the case, including any orders made, was not detailed in the text provided.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established