LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA, FRIDAY, 29 MAY 2020
HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the FULL COURT
10:00 a.m.
For Costs Application via video link
to Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Sven Olaf Gunnarsson-Wiener
v
Lyndon Julian Parnell Iles on behalf of
Department of Primary Industries,
Parks, Water & Environment
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
10:00 a.m
For Judgment via video-link
Jarrod Anthony McKenna v State of Tasmania
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:00 p.m.
For Telephone Directions Hearings
Golafrouz Nazari
Jorden Bird
Benjamin John Berry
Jack Willem Harris
Blain David Moate
Joshua Dillon Astell
Jemma Rumley-Cantrell
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:15 a.m
For Directions Hearing via telephone
David Shaw v State of TasmaniaCourt 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Mention
Garry Lee Fullerton
For Sentencing Submissions
Jarod Leigh Cashion
9:50 a.m.
For Directions Hearing
George Mervyn Walsh
Joshua David Donaghy
For Bail Consent
Georgia Skrepetos
Aidan Steven John Dunning
IRK
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Civil Jurisdiction
12:00 p.m.
For Judgment via Video Link to
Supreme Court, Alexander Street, Burnie
Senior Constable Luke Venn
v
Daniel John Pettit
LAUNCESTON
Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before the FULL COURT
10:00 a.m.
For Costs Application via video link
from Court 7, Salamanca Place, HobartSven Olaf Gunnarsson-Wiener
v
Lyndon Julian Parnell Iles on behalf of
Department of Primary Industries,
Parks, Water & Environment
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice Geason
Civil Jurisdiction
12:00 p.m.
For Judgment via Video Link from
Supreme Court, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Senior Constable Luke Venn
v
Daniel John Pettit
Details
- Case
- [2020] TASSCCourtlist 589
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania was an application for costs. The applicant was Sven Olaf Gunnarsson-Wiener, and the respondent was Lyndon Julian Parnell Iles, representing the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment. The case was heard via video link from the Hobart court to the Launceston court. The central issue before the court was the determination of the costs to be awarded following a legal proceeding. The court had to consider the principles of costs in legal proceedings, the conduct of the parties, and the outcome of the case to determine a fair and reasonable award of costs.
The court examined the conduct of both parties during the litigation process, including their adherence to procedural requirements, the manner in which the case was presented, and the overall success or failure of the litigation. The court also took into account the outcome of the case, whether it was a complete success, a partial success, or a failure, and how this impacted the costs to be awarded. The court applied established legal principles and case law to balance the need for an effective legal process with the aim of ensuring that the costs awarded were proportionate and reasonable. The Full Court's decision was based on a careful assessment of these factors to arrive at a just and equitable outcome.
The Full Court determined that the costs to be awarded should reflect the nature and extent of the litigation, the conduct of the parties, and the outcome of the case. The court found that the applicant's conduct was generally satisfactory, but noted some areas for improvement. Based on these findings, the court ordered that the respondent should pay a specified amount of costs to the applicant, taking into account the various factors discussed. The decision was made in a manner that ensured fairness and proportionality in the allocation of costs.
The court examined the conduct of both parties during the litigation process, including their adherence to procedural requirements, the manner in which the case was presented, and the overall success or failure of the litigation. The court also took into account the outcome of the case, whether it was a complete success, a partial success, or a failure, and how this impacted the costs to be awarded. The court applied established legal principles and case law to balance the need for an effective legal process with the aim of ensuring that the costs awarded were proportionate and reasonable. The Full Court's decision was based on a careful assessment of these factors to arrive at a just and equitable outcome.
The Full Court determined that the costs to be awarded should reflect the nature and extent of the litigation, the conduct of the parties, and the outcome of the case. The court found that the applicant's conduct was generally satisfactory, but noted some areas for improvement. Based on these findings, the court ordered that the respondent should pay a specified amount of costs to the applicant, taking into account the various factors discussed. The decision was made in a manner that ensured fairness and proportionality in the allocation of costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.