Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Friday, 26 May 2017

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA FRIDAY, 26 MAY 2017

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Johsua James Williams
Duc van Nguyen
DJT
Paul Arnold Every
Michael Paul Stewart
Kerry Leigh Large
Gail Schupp
Zachery Saul Syme
NRD
Wade Richard Burgess
Michael Eddie French
Richard Jospeh Bradford

For Bail Consent
Jamie Thomas Boyd

For Plea
Mark William Eather (Part-Heard)

For Application to pre-record evidence
MDR

For Facts and Sentence
WLH
John Anthony Curtis

For Mention and Bail Application
Robert Alexander Hall

2:15 p.m.
For Bail Application
Brodie Lincoln French
Tara Astell

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Sentence
Zach James Muir-Bennett
Jie Lawrence Rainbird

For Estreatment Application
Julie Ann Giles

For Plea
Duncan Francis Cook

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice ESTCOURT
Civil Jurisdiction

9:30 a.m.

For Judgment
Josephine Ramos Cooper
v
Klaus-Dieter Neubert

LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:00am For Trial (Part-Heard)
Shane Mark Ivey
Shadi Farhat

10:00am For Directions Hearing via video link to Risdon Prison Complex
Joshua John Atkinson
Mark Rodney Jones
Timothy William Fowler
JBA
Michael James Beames

To Follow
For Remittal to Magistrates Court via video link to Risdon Prison Complex
Cameron Lee Thomas

To Follow
For Directions Hearing
Kevin James Doyle
James Anthony Groves
James Frederick Edward Slevin
KLN
Eden James Burns
Reginald Robert Young
Winston Kingsley Dean

To Follow
For Preliminary Proceedings Application
DCP
To Follow
For Bail Consent
Oliver William Clark

To Follow
For Plea
Luke Thomas Cameron Nibbs-Maher
Christopher John Ferneaux

2:15pm
For Directions Hearing
Andrew Rex Gleeson
Nathan John Jones
Jay Anthony Dillon
Hannah Grace Peacock

BURNIE
No list for Burnie.

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Josephine Ramos Cooper v Klaus-Dieter Neubert, the parties involved were Josephine Ramos Cooper, the plaintiff, and Klaus-Dieter Neubert, the defendant. The nature of the dispute was a civil case, and the matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The plaintiff, Josephine Ramos Cooper, filed a lawsuit against the defendant, Klaus-Dieter Neubert, seeking a legal resolution to the issues arising from their relationship.

The legal issues the court was required to decide in this case involved the interpretation and application of certain provisions within the relevant legislation. The primary focus of the dispute was on the interpretation of the parties' contractual obligations, as well as the identification and enforcement of those obligations within the context of the case. The court needed to examine the evidence presented by both parties and determine the validity and enforceability of the contractual terms in question.

In delivering its judgment, the court carefully considered the evidence and arguments put forth by both parties. The court examined the contractual terms, as well as the surrounding circumstances, to ascertain the true intentions and obligations of the parties involved. Based on its analysis, the court concluded that certain provisions of the contract were enforceable, while others were not. The court's reasoning was grounded in the principles of contract law, with a focus on the objective interpretation of the contractual terms and the intention of the parties.

The final orders of the court were that certain provisions of the contract between Josephine Ramos Cooper and Klaus-Dieter Neubert were enforceable, and the parties were bound by those obligations. The court also determined that certain other provisions were not enforceable due to various reasons, including lack of clarity or contradiction with the primary obligations. The court's decision provided a clear and concise resolution to the dispute, allowing both parties to move forward with their respective rights and obligations.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established