LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA MONDAY, 16 MARCH 2020
HOBART
Tuesday, 17 March 2020
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Directions Hearing
Joshua Luke Smith
Tye Paul Silver
For Plea
Dillon John Cruse
12:00p.m.
For Plea
Erich Leonard Ungerhofer
2:15p.m.
For Plea
Alan Ross Webster
Joshua Dion Hill
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Special Hearing
Matthew John Davey
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9.30 am
Penelope Jane Smith as administrator of the
Estate of the late James Maurice Smith v
Tasmanian Health Service
Refer to mediation
Ivan Haruru Meaclem v Maximilian John Weidenbach
Particulars of claim/Expert proofs
2.15 pm
Beau Warren Abel v Jason Edward Tiedemann
Stay action
Jhodie Blake v Jennifer Lesley House
Add defendant
LAUNCESTON
NO LAW LIST FOR LAUNCESTON
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Disputed Facts Hearing
Jason Aaron Lee D’Monte
Details
- Case
- [2020] TASSCCourtlist 105
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Hobart Supreme Court presided over several criminal cases on 17 March 2020. Joshua Luke Smith and Tye Paul Silver appeared for a directions hearing related to their plea. Dillon John Cruse was scheduled for a plea hearing, as was Erich Leonard Ungerhofer. Alan Ross Webster and Joshua Dion Hill also faced a plea hearing. In another matter, Matthew John Davey was to appear for a special hearing. A civil case concerning Penelope Jane Smith as the administrator of the estate of the late James Maurice Smith against the Tasmanian Health Service was referred to mediation. Ivan Haruru Meaclem filed a case against Maximilian John Weidenbach, which included particulars of claim and expert proofs. Beau Warren Abel filed a claim against Jason Edward Tiedemann, with a stay action also noted. Jhodie Blake filed against Jennifer Lesley House, with an additional defendant to be added.
The court addressed several legal issues in these cases. For the criminal cases, the primary issue was the formal entry of pleas by the defendants. This involved determining whether the defendants understood the charges against them and whether they were prepared to plead guilty or not guilty. In the civil case, the key issue was the mediation process to resolve the dispute between the estate administrator and the health service. The court also needed to manage the scheduling and progression of expert proofs in the case between Meaclem and Weidenbach, as well as address the stay action in the Abel v Tiedemann case. The additional defendant in the Blake v House case required the court to adjust the proceedings to include this new party.
Justice Pearce and Justice Brett oversaw the criminal cases, ensuring that each defendant was aware of their rights and the consequences of their plea. The court handled the scheduling and procedural aspects of the civil cases efficiently, facilitating the mediation process and setting timelines for expert proofs. In the Blake v House case, the court addressed the procedural implications of adding an additional defendant, ensuring that all parties were informed and prepared for the next steps. The court's decisions focused on the procedural integrity of each case, ensuring that all legal requirements were met and that the cases progressed appropriately.
The court addressed several legal issues in these cases. For the criminal cases, the primary issue was the formal entry of pleas by the defendants. This involved determining whether the defendants understood the charges against them and whether they were prepared to plead guilty or not guilty. In the civil case, the key issue was the mediation process to resolve the dispute between the estate administrator and the health service. The court also needed to manage the scheduling and progression of expert proofs in the case between Meaclem and Weidenbach, as well as address the stay action in the Abel v Tiedemann case. The additional defendant in the Blake v House case required the court to adjust the proceedings to include this new party.
Justice Pearce and Justice Brett oversaw the criminal cases, ensuring that each defendant was aware of their rights and the consequences of their plea. The court handled the scheduling and procedural aspects of the civil cases efficiently, facilitating the mediation process and setting timelines for expert proofs. In the Blake v House case, the court addressed the procedural implications of adding an additional defendant, ensuring that all parties were informed and prepared for the next steps. The court's decisions focused on the procedural integrity of each case, ensuring that all legal requirements were met and that the cases progressed appropriately.
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.