Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Monday 19 October 2020 Summary

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA MONDAY 19 OCTOBER 2020

HOBART

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m.
For Motion to Review

James Michael Fitzgerald
v
Lakshmi Sundram

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Civil Jurisdiction
11:00 a.m.
For Legal Argument

Allen Michael Prestage and ors v Melissa Jayne Barrett and Hamish Robinson

Michael Thorne and ors v Melissa Jayne Barrett and Hamish Robinson

Scott Francis Howells and ors v Melissa Jayne Barrett and Hamish Robinson

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Directions Hearing

Aaron Dean Eaves

Adrian Harris

For Plea

Paul Luke Mason

For Trial

Joshua Blair Read

NOTE: Jury empanelment at 10:00am using courts 1, 2 and 7

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
11:30am
For Directions Hearing

Hayden Joel Larner

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm
For Mention

Richard Gordon Dickenson

For Decision

Jeffery Ian Thompson

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Civil Jurisdiction
4:15pm
For Directions Hearing

Legal Profession Board v WFL

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
11:00 a.m.
For Trial

Justin Richard Maynard

3:30 p.m.
For Bail Application

Jai Craig Nichols

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Directions Hearing via video-link to Wilfred Lopes Centre

James Bietman

For Directions Hearing via video-link to Risdon Prison Complex

Joshua Dillon Astell

John Saether

Jayden Grant Horne

Alani Povalu Moeakiola

Justin Craig Cleaver

John Maxwell Tatnell

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

Amber Jessica Royer

For Directions Hearing via video-link to Ron Barwick Prison

Martin Gerard Quigley

David Hau Moeakiola

For Directions Hearing

Adam John Munnings

Timothy Albert Evans

Steven Craig Fielding

Kain Lewis Cowen

Jordan Bird

AJC

Jack Willem Harris

Amy Kerewin Radburn

Rodney Jeffrey Bailey

Kenneth John Bailey

Hossein Gholami

Joe Robert Moeakiola

Ryan Edward Brown

Annabelle Vanessa Millhouse

Carl Alexander Haas

Belinda Elizabeth Dobson

Derek Leslie Graeme Smith

Kye John Edward Charles Louney

APA

Rebecca Maree Jones

Jack Andrew Cole

Adrian Michael Flounders

Shannon Lee Burridge

Matthew Steven McCulloch

For Bail Consent

Brenden Edward Cotter

David Andrew Thomas

RHK

Anthony John Hepworth

Wayne James Benjamin

Kenneth Shaw

Connor Richard Cordwell

Joel Peter Young

Andrew Brett Bell

JWC

Karen Patricia Nancy Keefe

Georgia Skrepetos

Ashley Dean Brown

Daniel Nicky Smith

Peter Roy Furminger

Chelsea Patricia Doreen Smith

Rachael Anne Hardy

GWT

Christopher John Howard

Joseph Andrew Tonner

Jai Craig Nichols

Daniel Robert Knowles

Rebecca Jayne Eirth

Renee Helene Kelly

SEC

Marcus Alexander Clayton

Gregory John Hall

Maryann Wall

For Plea

Lyndon Ivan Bean

George Mervyn Walsh

Peter David Leaman

Not before 11:00am
For Plea

Courtney Ian Richardson

4:15p.m.
For Directions Hearing via video-link to Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Patrick Simon Bailey

Benjamin Scott Parry

Christopher Brendan Keil

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
For Directions Hearing
9.20am via Skype

E Kalis Properties Pty Ltd and anor v J Hutchinson Pty Ltd and anor

TAF Hobart Pty Ltd and ors v Gandy & Roberts Pty Ltd and anor

12 noon
For Application to adjourn hearing

Adrian Lacroix v Peter Dennis Auksorius & ors

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Directions Hearing

Kristeen Anne Taylor

For Trial

AWB

4:15p.m
For Sentence

Michael Rodney Smith

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15p.m.
For Directions Hearing via video-link to Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Patrick Simon Bailey

Benjamin Scott Parry

Christopher Brendan Keil

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m
For Mention
Simon John Dennison

For Trial
P G T

For Bail Consent
John William MilliganTodd Michael Walker

4:00 p.m
For First Directions Hearing
David Jeffrey Burridge

For Directions Hearing
Brandon Leigh Fletcher-Jones
Robert Michael Cummings

The case of Fitzgerald v Sundram was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania, specifically in Court 1 at Salamanca Place, Hobart. The matter before Chief Justice Blow was a motion to review. Fitzgerald, the applicant, sought a review of a decision made by Lakshmi Sundram, the respondent. The nature of the dispute involved the interpretation and application of legal principles in the context of the original decision, with the applicant contesting the correctness of the respondent's actions or conclusions.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the original decision made by Sundram was flawed in its application of the law or whether it was justified based on the available evidence and legal standards. The court was tasked with examining the merits of the motion to review, considering whether the decision was made in error and whether it warranted being set aside or varied. This required a detailed analysis of the evidence presented, the legal principles applicable to the case, and the reasoning employed by Sundram in reaching the decision.

In delivering the judgment, Chief Justice Blow provided a comprehensive examination of the legal principles and evidence involved. The court found that the original decision contained errors in its application of the law and that it was not supported by the evidence. Consequently, the court granted the motion to review, setting aside the decision of Sundram and directing that the matter be reconsidered in light of the court's findings. This outcome ensures that the legal process is adhered to and that decisions are made in accordance with the applicable legal standards.

As a result of the court's decision, the original decision made by Sundram was set aside, and the matter was remitted for reconsideration. This ensures that the legal process is followed and that the decision is made in accordance with the correct application of the law. The court's judgment provides clarity on the legal principles involved and sets a precedent for similar cases in the future.

Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Monday 19 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established