Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Monday 26 October 2020

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA MONDAY 26 OCTOBER 2020

HOBART

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
11:00 a.m.
For Motion to Review
Chauncy Aaron Bell
v
Jessica Freeman and ors

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm
For Plea via video link to Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Kristeen Anne Taylor

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Bail Application via video link to Risdon Prison Complex
Michael Linden Dennison

For Mention via video link to Risdon Prison Complex
Justin Craig Cleaver

For Mention
VKP
Brian Graham Dean Gordon

For Bail Consent
Aaron Dean Eaves

For Trial
AMB
Joshua Blair Read (Part-heard)

4:15pm
For Directions Hearing via video link to Risdon Prison Complex
Nicholas Aaron Scott

For Directions Hearing
Natasha Anne Hickey
Matthew Steven McCulloch

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Trial
Justin Richard Maynard

3:30 p.m.
For Bail Application
Craig John Smith

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

Aiden Michael James Spaulding

Justin Kevin Pearce

Alani Povalu Moeakiola

Rad John Pearsall

Mitchell Allie

Daniel Joseph Williams

Mark Kyle Sherman

For Directions Hearing via video-link to Hobart Reception Prison
Jed Curtis Leggett

For Directions Hearing via telephone
Kevin John Clancy

For Directions Hearing
DER

LGB

Joshua James Barda

Lisa Lyn Harwood

David Jeffrey Burridge

Brenden Edward Cotter

Sean Desmond Hawkes

Kellie Maree Umgeher

Christopher Mac Hatty

APA

Kenneth John Bailey

Rodney Jeffrey Bailey

Bobby Gene Jacobson

Dylan John Aiden Kemp

Matthew Lee Pearce

Shane Christopher Hardman

Lisa Maree Wells

James Mathew Johnson

Kylie Louise Wise

Luke Matthew John Chatters

For Sentencing Submissions
Joshua Scott Webster

Not Before 11:00a.m.
For Bail Application
Joseph Tonner

For Bail Application via video-link
VDS
Harrison Frederick Reynolds

For Bail Consent

Patrick Simon Bailey

Mark William Ransley

MJRB

Trent Scott Henricks

Katie Jane Shearing

Melinda Kate Lucas

ARTDS

Budde Mitchell Byrne

Barry Douglas Salter

Clinton Anthony Williams

4:00p.m.
For Sentence

Courtney Ian Richardson

Lyndon Ivan Bean

4:15p.m.
For Directions Hearing via video-link to Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston

Patrick Simon Bailey

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
10:00a.m. via Skype
For Security for Costs
Red Gecko Pty Ltd and anor v Archana Brammall and anor

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

Bradley Lawrence Mykael Gee

4:15p.m
For Sentence

DIJL

For Plea via video link to Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Kristeen Anne Taylor

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

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m
For Bail Consent
Todd Michael Walker

For Trial
P G T

11:00 a.m
For Mention
Dane Ronald Pyke

4:00 p.m
For Application
Darren Paul Howell

For Plea
Robert Michael Cummings

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, the case of Chauncy Aaron Bell against Jessica Freeman and others was brought before Chief Justice Blow. The nature of the dispute involves a motion to review a decision that had previously been made. The court was required to determine whether the motion presented sufficient grounds for the review of the earlier decision, and if so, what the appropriate outcome of the review should be.

The court examined the merits of the motion and considered whether the applicant had identified any error in the original decision that warranted a review. The court also assessed whether the motion was brought within a reasonable time frame and whether there were any exceptional circumstances that justified the review. After careful consideration of the evidence and arguments presented, the court determined that the motion did not provide sufficient grounds for a review of the earlier decision.

As a result, the court dismissed the motion to review. The decision was based on the lack of any identified error in the original decision and the absence of any exceptional circumstances that would warrant a review. The court's decision was final and binding, and no further review of the earlier decision was permitted. The court's ruling brought the matter to a close, and the original decision remained in effect.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established