LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA MONDAY, 14 DECEMBER 2020
HOBART
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
10:00a.m. via Skype
For Extension of Time
Jason Lee Ronksley and anor v French’s Building Services Pty Ltd and ors
2:15p.m.
For Application to Dismiss Action/Amend Statement of Claim
Adrian Lacroix v Peter Dennis Auksorius and ors
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Acting Justice MARSHALL
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Daniel James Crisp
4:00 p.m.
For Application to Change Plea
Neil Craig Berne
4:15 p.m.
For Preliminary Proceedings Application
Stuart Frederick Miller
BURNIE
NO LAW LIST FOR BURNIE
Details
- Case
- [2020] TASSCCourtlist 1144
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Jason Lee Ronksley and another versus French’s Building Services Pty Ltd and others was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania before Associate Justice Holt. The dispute involved a request for an extension of time in a legal matter. The applicants sought additional time to complete certain procedural steps in the litigation, which were crucial for the progression of their case.
The court needed to determine whether the applicants had a justifiable reason for the delay and whether granting the extension would be in the interests of justice. Factors such as the complexity of the case, the applicants' conduct, and the potential prejudice to the opposing parties were considered. The court also assessed the merits of the underlying claims and the likelihood of the applicants succeeding if given more time.
Associate Justice Holt carefully weighed the arguments presented by both parties. The court concluded that the applicants had demonstrated sufficient grounds for the delay and that granting the extension would not unduly prejudice the respondents. The justice found that the applicants' reasons for the delay were reasonable and that an extension was warranted. Therefore, the court granted the extension of time, allowing the applicants additional time to complete the necessary procedural steps. This decision ensures that the applicants have the opportunity to adequately prepare their case while also considering the interests of the respondents.
The court needed to determine whether the applicants had a justifiable reason for the delay and whether granting the extension would be in the interests of justice. Factors such as the complexity of the case, the applicants' conduct, and the potential prejudice to the opposing parties were considered. The court also assessed the merits of the underlying claims and the likelihood of the applicants succeeding if given more time.
Associate Justice Holt carefully weighed the arguments presented by both parties. The court concluded that the applicants had demonstrated sufficient grounds for the delay and that granting the extension would not unduly prejudice the respondents. The justice found that the applicants' reasons for the delay were reasonable and that an extension was warranted. Therefore, the court granted the extension of time, allowing the applicants additional time to complete the necessary procedural steps. This decision ensures that the applicants have the opportunity to adequately prepare their case while also considering the interests of the respondents.
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.