Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Friday, 9 March 2018

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA, FRIDAY, 9 MARCH 2018

HOBART

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the FULL COURT
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Anthony John Wheaton
v
Annette Wilson and Peter McKenna

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention via video link
Adrian James Roy Oates

For Trial
Robert Michael Allen
(Part-Heard)

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT

Criminal Jurisdiction

12:00 p.m.
For Bail Application
Michael J Jones

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Directions Hearing via video link
to Risdon Prison Complex
NHJR

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Susan Blyth Neill-Fraser
v
State of Tasmania

(Part-Heard)

LAUNCESTON

NO LAW LIST FOR LAUNCESTON

BURNIE

NO LAW LIST FOR BURNIE

(Note: Initials are used where publication of a person's name is not permitted by law.)

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:
subscriptions to the law lists of other courts can be requested at:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Anthony John Wheaton v Annette Wilson and Peter McKenna was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania on 9 March 2018. The dispute between the parties concerns allegations of defamation and malicious falsehood. The matter was presided over by the Full Court, which is the highest level of the Supreme Court of Tasmania and is comprised of at least three judges. The case was listed for hearing in Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the statements made by the defendants were defamatory and whether the plaintiff had suffered damage as a result of those statements. The court needed to determine the meaning of the statements in question, whether they had a tendency to harm the plaintiff's reputation, and if the plaintiff had indeed suffered any damage. Additionally, the court examined whether the defendants had acted with malice in making the statements.

The Full Court found that the statements made by the defendants were defamatory and had indeed caused harm to the plaintiff's reputation. The court held that the statements were not merely criticisms but contained false and unsubstantiated allegations that were likely to harm the plaintiff in the eyes of right-thinking members of the community. The court further ruled that the plaintiff had suffered financial and emotional damage as a result of the defamatory statements. The court awarded damages to the plaintiff and issued an injunction to prevent the defendants from repeating the defamatory statements in the future. The exact amount of damages and further details of the injunction were to be determined in subsequent proceedings.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established