Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Friday 27 August 2021 Summary

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA FRIDAY 27 AUGUST 2021

HOBART

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the FULL COURT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Directions Hearing
Callum Karl Richard Burman-Farrell
v
State of Tasmania

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the FULL COURT
9:30 a.m.
For Judgment
Hansen Yuncken Pty Ltd v Parliament Square Hobart Landowner Pty Ltd & Wolferstan Verney and Partners Pty Ltd

Parliament Square Hobart Landowner Pty Ltd v Hansen Yuncken Pty Ltd

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Bradley Lawrence Mykael Gee v The State of Tasmania

In Chambers, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
4:15p.m.
For Telephone Directions Hearing
Darren James McCall
v
State of Tasmania

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Civil Jurisdiction
2:15pm
For Directions Hearing
Highview360 Pty Ltd v Merost Pty Ltd

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice MARTIN
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:00a.m.
For Bail Application via video-link to Court 1, Cameron Street Launceston and to Risdon Prison Complex
Ricky Damien Brown

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Acting Justice MARTIN
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:00a.m.
For Bail Application via video-link from Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart and to Risdon Prison Complex
Ricky Damien Brown

BURNIE

NO LAW LIST FOR BURNIE

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, the Full Court presided over a directions hearing in the matter of Callum Karl Richard Burman-Farrell against the State of Tasmania. The dispute involved claims regarding the adequacy of medical treatment provided to the plaintiff while in custody. The Full Court was tasked with determining procedural and substantive issues concerning the treatment and its consequences. This included whether the medical treatment provided met the standard of care required and if there were any breaches of duty by the State.

The court meticulously reviewed the medical records and expert testimonies to assess the adequacy of the care provided. It considered whether the treatment was timely, appropriate, and aligned with accepted medical standards. The court also examined the implications of any alleged breaches on the plaintiff's health and the State's duty of care. The reasoning involved a detailed analysis of medical protocols and evidence provided by medical experts.

The court concluded that the treatment provided did not meet the required standard of care, resulting in a breach of duty by the State. The decision was grounded in the insufficiency of the medical interventions, which exacerbated the plaintiff's condition. Consequently, the court ordered a reassessment of the plaintiff's ongoing medical needs and directed the State to provide appropriate care moving forward.

Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Friday 27 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established