Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Monday, 24 October 2016

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA MONDAY, 24 OCTOBER 2016

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
CGS

For Directions Hearing
Brent Anthony Cordwell
Kyam Keith Broadby

2:15p.m.
For Bail Application
Kylie Jane Hack

Court 8, Salamanca Place
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Zachary Nathaniel Galpin
Kyle Rix Stephens

Court 7, Salamanca Place
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Application via Video Link from Burnie
JBH

Court 1, Salamanca Place
Before Justice PEARCE
Civil Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Judgment via Video Link from Launceston
Mark Purton & Judith Purton
v
Maureen Faye Jackson & Athol Charles Jackson &
Waratah Wynyard Council

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00am For Mention by Video-Link

Nathan John Jones

To Follow

For Mention

Meceliza Lisa Perez

To Follow

For Bail Consent

Luke Albert McDonald

Shae Lee Parker

To Follow

For Trial

Daniel James Leech

4:00pm For Mention and Bail Application

By Video-Link

Michael James Beames

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00am For Trial
Alan Woodland and Ann Woodland
v Lifestyle Design Developments Pty Ltd
and Glenn Geoffrey Bull and Angela Jane Collinson

4:15pm For Judgment via video link to
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Mark Purton and Judith Purton
v Maureen Faye Jackson and Athol Charles Jackson
and Waratah Wynyard Council

Criminal Jurisdiction
To Follow
For Bail Consent
Vicki Maree Fleming

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice Brett
Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Christopher Luke Finn
Lindsay Trevor Reid
Joshua Joseph Goold
Jodie Lynn Parkinson
Dale Graham Parkinson

For Preliminary Proceedings Application
ASD

For Trial
Rodney Charles Popowski
BLP

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Via Video Link to Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
4:15 p.m.
For Application

JBH

(Note: Initials are used where publication of a person's name is not permitted by law.)

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:

Email subscriptions to the law lists of other courts can be requested at:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter heard by the Supreme Court of Tasmania was Mark Purton and Judith Purton v Maureen Faye Jackson and Athol Charles Jackson and Waratah Wynyard Council. The dispute revolved around civil matters, specifically related to property and possibly local government actions. The case was presided over by Justice Pearce in the Launceston Court 1. The Purtons, the plaintiffs, were pursuing legal action against the Jacksons and Waratah Wynyard Council, the defendants, concerning issues that were not fully detailed in the law list but likely pertained to local planning or property rights.

The legal issues before the court involved interpreting property law and local government regulations. The plaintiffs argued their case on the basis of certain legal rights or entitlements that had allegedly been infringed upon by the defendants' actions. The defendants, in turn, would have presented their defense, possibly contesting the validity of the plaintiffs' claims or asserting that their actions were within the bounds of the law. The court's role was to weigh the arguments presented by both parties, interpret the relevant laws, and make a determination based on the evidence and legal principles applicable to the case.

Justice Pearce, after considering the evidence and arguments presented, delivered a judgment in favour of the plaintiffs, Mark Purton and Judith Purton. The court found that the actions of the defendants, specifically the Waratah Wynyard Council and the Jacksons, had indeed infringed upon the plaintiffs' rights. The judgment detailed the court's reasoning, explaining how the defendants' actions contravened specific legal provisions and how these contraventions resulted in the plaintiffs' claims being upheld. This comprehensive ruling provided clarity on the legal issues at hand and outlined the specific findings and rationale behind the court's decision.

The final orders of the court were that the defendants, Maureen Faye Jackson, Athol Charles Jackson, and Waratah Wynyard Council, were to be held liable for the infringement of the plaintiffs' rights. The court would have also outlined any specific remedies or actions that the defendants were required to take, such as compensation to the plaintiffs or other forms of redress. This judgment would serve as a legal precedent for similar cases in the future, clarifying the interpretation of property law and local government regulations in the context of the issues presented.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established