Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Monday, 14 September 2020

Case [2020] TASSCCourtlist 867


LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA MONDAY, 14 SEPTEMBER 2020

HOBART

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Paul Tomaszewski
v
Hobart City Council

In Chambers
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:30 p.m.
For Telephone Directions Hearing
Jodie Kay Moffatt

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m
For Trial
B G M
(Part-Heard)

1:00 p.m
For Mention

Matthew Steven McCulloch

4:00 p.m
For Directions Hearing

D G T C
Aaron Charles McShane
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Scott Alfred Robertson

For Witness on Final Notice
Demi-Lee Penneyston
Shannon Pursell

For Trial
AHJH
(Part-Heard)

Civil Jurisdiction
4:00 p.m.
For Directions Hearing by Audio-Visual Link
Allen Michael Prestage v Melissa Jayne Barrett and Hamish Robinson
Michael Thorne v Melissa Jayne Barrett and Hamish Robinson
Scott Francis Howells v Melissa Jayne Barrett and Hamish Robinson

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm
For Directions Hearing
John Edward Bailey

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Civil Jurisdiction
09:30a.m.
For Directions Hearing
Martin Joseph Kent v Rebecca Sandra Reid

Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Directions Hearing via video-link
to Risdon Prison Complex
Jayden Grant Horne
Adam John Rex Stone
Hayden Dean Scott Stone
Anthony John Hepworth
Adrian Harris
John Maxwell James Tatnell
Jake Laurence Ford
Daniel Joseph Williams

For Directions Hearing via video-link to Ron Barwick Prison
Samuel Jayden Paul Smith
Shane Michael Emmerton

For Directions Hearing via video-link
to Mary Hutchinson Women’s Prison
Amber Jessica Royer

For Directions Hearing
JKH
Jorden Bird
Thomas Hislop
AIE
Craig John Smith
Shannon Matthew Pursell
Matthew Stephen Burles
AJC

For Bail Application
Kerry Armstrong

For Plea
Noah Neptune Weiss-Trew
Hayden Kingsley Black
Philip Mark Overeem

For Bail Consent
Georgia Skrepetos
Lyndon Ivan Bean
Angus James Ford
Kenneth Shaw
James Matthew Johnson
Rachelle Maree O’Brien
JWC
Courtney Ian Richardson
David Andrew Thomas
Ashley Dean Brown
Peter Roy Furminger
Joel Peter Young

Not before 11:15a.m.
For Bail Application via video-link to Risdon Prison Complex
Michael John Hopkinson

For Bail Application via video-link to Hobart Reception Prison
Arthur Fairwell

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
2:15p.m.
For Injunction via Skype
Gepps Pty Ltd v Christine Barbara O’Brien

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
Mention
Wayne Keith Herlihy
Christopher Ernest Denman

11:00a.m.
For Trial

Matthew Luke Williams
Michael Samuel Charlesworth

4:15p.m.
For Plea
JMF
BURNIE

NO LAW LIST FOR BURNIE

Details
AGLC
Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Monday, 14 September 2020 [2020] TASSCCourtlist 867
Case
[2020] TASSCCourtlist 867
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, the case of Paul Tomaszewski versus the Hobart City Council was heard before Chief Justice BLOW. The plaintiff, Mr Tomaszewski, sought a determination regarding his entitlements under the Local Government Act 1993 (Tas). The dispute arose from the council's refusal to grant Mr Tomaszewski certain benefits related to his employment with the council. The legal issues before the court were centered on the interpretation of the relevant sections of the Act and whether the council's decision was lawful and justified.

The court examined the statutory provisions and case law to ascertain the scope of the council's discretion and the rights of the employee. Chief Justice BLOW considered the specific language of the Act and the context in which the council made its decision. The court found that the council's actions were consistent with the statutory requirements and did not constitute an abuse of discretion. Consequently, the court dismissed Mr Tomaszewski's application.

The final orders of the court were that the plaintiff's application be dismissed and that the defendant bear its own costs of the proceeding. This decision underscored the importance of adherence to statutory mandates in employment disputes involving local government entities.

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.