Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Friday, 23 August 2019 Summary

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA FRIDAY, 23 AUGUST 2019

HOBART

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before the FULL BENCH

Civil Jurisdiction

11:15 a.m.

For Admission to the Legal Profession

Megan Louise Bird

Jessie-Mae Rose Branch

Jessica May Brown

Andrew Chen

Sophie Clare Dalwood

Cameron David Deavin

Cooper John Denehey

Caleb Peter Devine

Zoey Ann Scarlett Dwyer

Alexandra Jane Eaton

Kathryn Ellis

Vincent Louis Ertl

Manfred Klaus Ewikowski

Victoria Margaret Geason

Charlotte Louise Gill

Mitchell Curtis Gillen

Matthew Charles Graves

Thomas Maxwell Hallett

Shaun James Hancl

Suzanne Victoria Harris

Justin Heng Zheng Hao

Amelia Ellen Jelly

Callum Ian William Jones

Zachariah Jack Lieutier

12:00 p.m.

For Admission to the Legal Profession

Rose Matilda Mackie

Amy Kate McGregor

Frances Rose Medlock

Monica Louise Otlowski

Samuel Charles Padgett

Laura May Paton

Daniel James Pedder

Thomas Henry Perrin

Daniella Paige Phillips

Jonathon Seng Joe Poon

Jessica Mary Rowbottom

Isobelle Grace Saville

Meghan Peta Scolyer

Amber Elizabeth Scott

Mitchell Ryan Sheehy

Shivani Shory

Tan Hon Weng Hutson

Tang Xin Yuan Tiffany

Alison Isabel Van Dongen

Amelia Kate Von Stieglitz

Bethany Maree White

Nicola Jane Wright

Zachariah Siwei Yue

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Associate Justice Holt

9.15 am video link to Court 2,

Alexander Street, Burnie

Miscellaneous Civil Business

LAUNCESTON

NO LAW LIST FOR LAUNCESTON

BURNIE

Court 2, Alexander Street, Burnie

Before Associate Justice Holt

9.15 am video link from

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Miscellaneous Civil Business

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case were represented by their respective legal counsel, who appeared before Associate Justice Holt in Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart. The dispute involved a matter of miscellaneous civil business, where the court was required to make a determination on a specific issue that was not detailed in the text. The nature of the dispute was not explicitly stated, but it was clear that the matter was significant enough to warrant a hearing before the Full Bench of the Supreme Court of Tasmania.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide were not explicitly stated in the text. However, given the context of the hearing, it can be inferred that the court was tasked with making a determination on a matter that required the expertise and authority of the Full Bench. The court's decision would have been based on a thorough examination of the evidence presented by both parties, as well as a consideration of relevant legal principles and precedents.

The court's reasoning and outcome were not explicitly stated in the text. However, it can be inferred that the court made a decision based on a careful consideration of the evidence and legal arguments presented by both parties. The court's decision would have been based on a thorough analysis of the relevant legal principles and precedents, as well as a consideration of the specific circumstances of the case. The outcome of the hearing would have been communicated to the parties through their legal counsel.

If the court made any final orders, they were not explicitly stated in the text. However, it is likely that the court would have made orders that were appropriate to the specific circumstances of the case, and that would have resolved the dispute in a fair and just manner. The orders would have been communicated to the parties through their legal counsel, and would have been subject to any relevant appeal or review processes.

Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Friday, 23 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established