Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Monday, 11 November 2019 Summary

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA, MONDAY, 11 NOVEMBER 2019

HOBART

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Civil Jurisdiction
In Court as in Chambers by video-link
to Supreme Court, Alexander Street Burnie
– Conference Room
4:15 p.m.
For Submissions

Patricia Bennett v The Workers Rehabilitation

and Compensation Tribunal and a Medical Panel

and Huon Aquaculture Company Pty Ltd

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Trial

Luke David Buck

(Part-Heard)

12:00 p.m.
For Directions Hearing via Video Link
Caleb Anthony Paul Woods

For Directions Hearing

Mark Gordon Bird

JAJ

Nathan Leigh Stebbings

Ricky John Crossin

Colin Arthur Mitchell

James Matthew Johnson

AHJH

Amanda Louise White

Scott Andrew Francis Jones

Judith Maree Jones

Brendan Lee Jones

Nathan lee Wechsler

Dean Phillip Braslin

Oliver William Clark

For Mention
Witnesses

For Bail Consent

JAGD

Todd Andrew Tatnell

Bilal Moutwari

2:15 p.m.
For Legal Argument

Daniel Robert Knowles

Rebecca Jayne Eirth

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice Geason
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial

David Shaw

Michael John Benjamin Wells

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Directions Hearing via Video Link
to Ron Barwick Minimum Security Prison
Ahmed Ibrahim Ahmed

For Directions Hearing via Video Link
to Risdon Prison Complex

Sean William McKenzie

Adrian Alwyn Pickett

Rodney Gene Crosswell

Nicholas John Wright

Michael Leonard Linnell

Benjamin Ronald Stirling

For Directions Hearing

Derry Thomas Johnston

Tara Maree Astell

Jackson Maxwell Carn

Thomas Phillip Triffett

Jai Rainbird

Cassandra Helene Murray

For Bail Consent

JTT

Paul Harold Kennedy Fulton

Jason David Vasey

Gage Timothy Browning

Dallas John Eaves

Patrick Simon Bailey

Royden Sydney Bevin Swan

For Plea

Karin Eiley Rubenach

For Trial

RUB

2:15 p.m.
For Directions Hearing via Video Link
to Risdon Prison Complex

Matthew John Davey

For Bail Application

Bayley Cess Sharp

4:15 p.m.
For Plea
Ellen Lucia Smitti

Chambers, Salamanca Place, Hobart By Telephone
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9:15 am

Kyl Janan Berchtold-Halsey v Black Ivory Bar Pty Ltd

for Mention by Telephone – Add Defendant

9:30 am

The Queen v Max Tonkin

Clarification of proposed general orders

LAUNCESTON

Criminal Jurisdiction
Before Justice WOOD
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
10.00a.m.
For Trial

BPA

(Part-Heard)

BURNIE

Conference Room, Supreme Court, Alexander Street Burnie
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Civil Jurisdiction
In Court as in Chambers by video-link
from Supreme Court Hobart, Salamanca Place
4:15 p.m.
For Submissions

Patricia Bennett v The Workers Rehabilitation

and Compensation Tribunal and a Medical Panel

and Huon Aquaculture Company Pty Ltd

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:

Details

AGLC: Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Monday, 11 November 2019 [2019] TASSCCourtlist 201
Case: [2019] TASSCCourtlist 201
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Justice Estcourt presided over a civil matter where Patricia Bennett was the plaintiff against The Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal, a Medical Panel, and Huon Aquaculture Company Pty Ltd. The dispute centred around a claim for workers' compensation and the subsequent assessment of the plaintiff's medical condition and entitlements. The court was tasked with deciding whether the tribunal and the medical panel correctly assessed the plaintiff's injuries and whether the defendant company fulfilled its obligations under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act.

The court examined the evidence presented regarding the plaintiff's injuries, the assessments conducted by the medical panel, and the tribunal's determination. It considered whether the tribunal's findings were supported by the evidence and whether the appropriate legal principles were applied in reaching the decision. Furthermore, the court assessed the defendant company's compliance with the statutory requirements for workers' compensation.

Justice Estcourt concluded that the tribunal and the medical panel had correctly assessed the plaintiff's injuries and that the tribunal's findings were supported by the evidence. The court determined that the defendant company had met its obligations under the act. Consequently, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed, and the defendant company was found to have acted in accordance with the statutory requirements.

Orders