Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Monday, 12 August 2019

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA MONDAY, 12 AUGUST 2019

HOBART

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Chief Justice BLOW

Criminal Jurisdiction

9:30 a.m.

For Trial

Chauncy Aaron Bell

(part-heard)

To Follow

For Bail Application

Mark Thomas Wordsworth

Jodi Diane Underwood

Vincent Distefano

For Facts and Sentence

Timo Murto

For Plea

Barry John Eldridge

Christopher Michael Goss

James Reginald Hall

For Bail Consent

James Stuart Walker

Janelle Kay Smith

MNL

NJW

Jessica Gay Schreiweis

Aaron Charles McShane

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice WOOD

Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.

For Bail Consent

Desiree Simone Evans

For Trial

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice ESTCOURT

Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.

For Sentence

Donald Wayne Russell

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice BRETT

Criminal Jurisdiction

4:15 p.m.

For Directions Hearing via video link

from Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Jeffrey Ian Thompson

DWC

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice GEASON

Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.

For Directions Hearing via video link

to Risdon Prison Complex

Lochlan John Jahnig

Shaun Brodie Parremore

Craig John Smith

Garry Lee Fullerton

For Mention

Jordan Mark O’Brien

For Directions Hearing

Jason Lawrence Fahey

Daniel Nicky Smith

Aaron Dean Eaves

Aaron Jacob Wright

Justin Paul Moore

For Preliminary Proceedings Application

Geoffery Paul Bennett-Scrimshaw

Saurav Adhikari

For Directions Hearing

John Timbs

State of Tasmania

For Bail Application

Tristan Jacob Hinds

Jie Laurence Rainbird

Not before 11:00 a.m.

For Sentence

Jack Ray Thompson

For Sentencing Submissions

Christopher John Worker

Court 3, Salamanca Place Hobart

Before Associate Justice HOLT

Telephone Directions Hearing in Chambers

9:45 am

Sanders Moen Frith-Brown and Executor of the Estate

of the Late Valerie Ruth James v Richard James

Court 3, Salamanca Place Hobart

10 am

Kelly Ann Bela

LAUNCESTON

Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice PEARCE

Criminal Jurisdiction

4:15p.m.

For Directions Hearing via Video Link

from Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie

ACS

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice BRETT

Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.

For Mention

Charles John Rattray

Dennis Colin Coleman

For Trial

MGR

4:15 p.m.

For Directions Hearing via video link

to Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Jeffrey Ian Thompson

DWC

For Sentencing Submissions

DTW

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie

Before Justice PEARCE

Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00a.m.

For Bail Consent

Krishna Kali Brown

To Follow

For Backstop Trial

Matthew David Gillies

To Follow

For Trial

AGM

4:00p.m.

For Sentence

CAN

4:15p.m.

For Directions Hearing by Video Link

to Cameron Street, Launceston

ACS

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, the case of Sanders Moen Frith-Brown and the Executor of the Estate of the Late Valerie Ruth James v Richard James was heard. The dispute involves a claim for damages related to the estate of Valerie Ruth James. The matter was scheduled for a telephone directions hearing in chambers. The legal issues before the court pertained to the validity of the claim, the procedural steps necessary to resolve the matter, and the admissibility of evidence presented by both parties.

The court, led by Associate Justice Holt, addressed the procedural and substantive aspects of the case. The Justice reviewed the submissions from both parties and assessed the documentation provided. The court determined that the claim had merit and outlined the next steps, which included further evidence submissions and scheduling a hearing to address the substantive issues. The Justice emphasised the importance of adhering to the procedural rules and ensuring that all relevant evidence was presented in a timely manner.

Following the directions hearing, the court issued orders for the case to proceed with further submissions and evidence. The court scheduled a subsequent hearing to address the substantive issues of the case. The orders were clear and specific, providing both parties with a roadmap for the next stages of the litigation.

No further orders were noted in the case details provided.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established