Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Friday, 26 February 2021

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA FRIDAY, 26 FEBRUARY 2021

HOBART

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Civil Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m
For Admission to the Legal Profession
Alison Maree Kay
Bridget Nina Jane Wallbank

4:00 p.m
For Judgment
Benjamin Jago v Anti-Discrimination Tribunal and anor

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
1:45 p.m
For Directions Hearing via video-link to Court 1, Burnie
Bradley Lawrence Mykael Gee v State of Tasmania

2:00 p.m
For Directions Hearing via video-link
Cameron James Riley v State of Tasmania

2:15 p.m
For Directions Hearing
R H K

For Sentence
T W

For Bail Consent
H F R

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Bail Consent
Jake Mark Pearce
Joel Peter Young
Brett Andrew Imlach
Dillon Robert Mitchell
Ty Ferguson
Stuart Alexander Ferguson

2:15 p.m.
For Facts and Sentence
Geoffrey Lynne Lucas

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Plea
PJR

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street,Burnie
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
1:45 p.m
For Directions Hearing via video-link from
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Bradley Lawrence Mykael Gee v State of Tasmania

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Tasmania heard a case involving Benjamin Jago, who sought a review of a decision made by the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal. Jago was dissatisfied with the outcome of the Tribunal's decision and brought the matter to the Supreme Court for judicial review. The legal issues in this case involved the scope and limits of the Supreme Court's power to review decisions made by the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal. The court had to determine whether the Tribunal had acted beyond its jurisdiction, whether there was an error of law, and whether the decision was unreasonable or unjust.

Justice WOOD, who presided over the case, considered the legal principles and precedents applicable to judicial review of administrative decisions. The court examined the Tribunal's decision in light of the relevant statutory framework and case law. Justice WOOD concluded that the Tribunal had not acted beyond its jurisdiction, and there was no error of law or unreasonableness in the decision. The court found that the Tribunal had properly exercised its discretion and that the decision was within the range of outcomes that a reasonable decision-maker could reach.

As a result, the Supreme Court dismissed Jago's application for judicial review, upholding the decision of the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal. Justice WOOD emphasised the importance of deference to administrative decision-makers, particularly in matters involving specialised expertise. The court's decision reinforces the principle that the judiciary should not lightly interfere with the decisions of administrative tribunals unless there is a clear error of law or jurisdictional excess.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established