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 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

LAUNCESTON

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
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 Red Gecko Pty Ltd and another versus Archana Brammall and another was heard. The matter involved a motion for security for costs. The plaintiffs sought an order for the defendants to provide financial security for the costs of the proceedings, arguing that the defendants had the means to do so but had not provided any. The defendants contested this, claiming they could not afford to provide the required security and that the plaintiffs' claims were without merit.

The legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiffs had demonstrated that the defendants had the means to pay the costs and whether the plaintiffs' claims were frivolous or vexatious. The court had to assess the evidence presented by both parties to determine if the defendants could afford to provide the required security and if the plaintiffs' claims were frivolous or vexatious.

The court found that the plaintiffs had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the defendants had the means to pay the costs. The court also found that the plaintiffs' claims were not frivolous or vexatious, but the lack of financial evidence from the defendants was not enough to compel them to provide security for costs. The motion was dismissed.

The court ordered that no security for costs be provided by the defendants and that the proceedings would continue without such security. The plaintiffs were required to bear their own costs unless further orders were made by the court.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established