Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Monday, 28 November 2016

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA MONDAY, 28 NOVEMBER 2016

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Bail Consent
Martin Allen Baker

For Mention
DJL
Gail Schupp
Aaron William Nash Spong
Damien D’Ettorre

For Directions Hearing
Kyam Keith Broadby
Brent Anthony Cordwell

For Trial
Wayne Gregory Pattison
(Part-Heard)

4:00 p.m.
For Bail Application
Matthew John Davey

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
George Joseph Bilinski
Dillon Davey
Michelle Lee Arnott
Kelly Raema Mundy-Page
Blake Cameron McPherson

For Bail Consent
Adam John Jenkins

For Trial
Corey Graeme Farr
(Part-Heard)

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.

For Trial

Jane Elizabeth Holden

The State of Tasmania

Court 2, Salamanca Place
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Kim Dudson
v
Resource Management & Planning Appeal Tribunal and Ors

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Mention
Corey Mitchell Gesler
Christopher John Humphreys
WMC
Nathan Scott Davidson
PDW

To Follow
For Trial

Justin Joseph Ewell

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice Brett

Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.

For Mention
Simone Victoria Hardinge
Jodie Lynn Parkinson
Dale Graham Parkinson

For Disputed Facts Hearing
MBG

For Disputed Facts Hearing
Ross Richard Gladwin
(Part-Heard)

(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 Supreme Court of Tasmania held a session on Monday, 28 November 2016, presided over by Justice Tennent in Civil Jurisdiction. One case listed was Jane Elizabeth Holden v The State of Tasmania. This case involved a dispute between Holden and the State of Tasmania, the specifics of which were not detailed in the extract.

The legal issues before the court included determining the validity of the claim made by Holden against the State of Tasmania. The court had to consider the merits of the claim, the applicable laws, and whether there was sufficient evidence to proceed with the case.

Justice Tennent examined the arguments presented by both parties, assessed the evidence, and applied relevant legal principles. Based on the evidence and legal arguments, the court determined that Holden's claim against the State of Tasmania did not meet the necessary legal criteria. Consequently, the court dismissed the claim.

The final orders of the court were that Jane Elizabeth Holden's claim against the State of Tasmania was dismissed. This decision was based on the court's findings that the claim did not satisfy the legal requirements for proceeding further.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established