LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA MONDAY, 29 MARCH 2021
HOBART
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the FULL COURT
4:30 p.m
For Judgment
Christopher John Boland v Clarence City CouncilCourt 3, Salamanca Place, HobartBefore Chief Justice BLOWCriminal Jurisdiction4:15 p.m.For Application Sean William McKenzie
Court 3, Salamanca Place, HobartBefore Chief Justice BLOWCivil Jurisdiction4:30 p.m.For Judgment Aaron Roy Johnston
v
Senior Constable Alisha Barnes
For JudgmentDirector of Public Prosecutions
v
Davies Brothers Pty LtdCourt 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Civil Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m
For Hearing via video-link
Senior Constable Scott Wilkie
v Taban Joseph John BarnabaCourt 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Directions Hearing
Aarif Billah Eldelah
For Bail Consent
Jaimie Stephen Sexton
For Trial
BTH Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm
For Directions Hearing via video link from Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
and to Risdon Prison Complex
MMP
For Directions Hearing via video link from Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
EEVP
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
Not before 11:15a.m.
For Directions Hearing
Alani Povalu Moeakiola
Joe Robert Moeakiola
David Hau Moeakiola
Ryan Edward Brown
For Directions Hearing
Chelsea Patricia Doreen Smith
Renee Helene Kelly
Patrick Simon Bailey
JD
Glenn William Kremmer
Daniel Nicky Smith
Elizabeth Ann Scott
Brett Raymond Fenton
MJP
Baden George Mann
Janelle Lynette Heron
ADSN
For Directions Hearing via video-link to Risdon Prison Complex 2
Brandon Malcolm Charlesworth
Jai Craig Nichols
Jacob Scott Riley-McDonald
Jacob Anthony Burden
Tony Matthew White
Dion James Cragg
For Directions Hearing via video-link to Ron Barwick Minimum Security
Shane Michael Emmerton
Martin Gerard Quigley
For Directions Hearing to Hobart Reception Prison
Mitchell Anthony Noel Allie
For Directions Hearing via video-link to Secure Mental Health Facility
Shaun James Scott
For Bail Consent
Ashley Erin Moore
Christopher John Howard
Maryann Wall
John Reeves
ATR
Casey Nicholas Booth
Adam John Munnings
NMH
Roderick Leigh Triffett
Anthony Stephen Butcher
Kain Lewis Cowen
Michael John Hopkinson
Rhonda Ruth O’Sign
Melinda Ann Berry
Todd Athol Jackson
For Application
Kye Scott James
For Plea
Jacob Kuba Iwaszek
For Bail Application
Frederick Craig Rushton
12:00p.m.
For Sentence via video-link to Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Jessie Lee Woodhouse
12:30p.m.
For Sentence via video-link to Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
KJD
2:15p.m.
For Bail Application
Tamara Leigh Clements
4:00p.m.
For Directions Hearing
TPB
4:15p.m.
For Bail Application
Daniel Luke BennettCourt 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Trial
Barry James Ambrose Cook
2:00p.m.
For Sentence via video-link to Risdon Prison Complex
Aiden Michael James Spaulding
2:15p.m.
For Plea in Mitigation
Aaron Dean Eaves
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
11:00a.m. For Hearing – interlocutory application
Mures Fishing Pty Ltd (ACN 069 572 149)
v Patrick Gerrard Holloway and anorLAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Bail Consent/Mention
Nicholas David Preston
Brody Reginald Costello
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm
For Directions Hearing via video link to Court 2,
Salamanca Place, Hobart and Risdon Prison Complex
MMP
For Directions Hearing via video link to Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
EEVP
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
AGR
(Part-heard)
4:15 p.m.
For Sentence
GWT
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
12:00p.m.
For Sentence via video-link from Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Jessie Lee Woodhouse
12:30p.m.
For Sentence via video-link from Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
KJD
Details
- Case
- [2021] TASSCCourtlist 90
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Supreme Court of Tasmania heard the case of Christopher John Boland v Clarence City Council, where the plaintiff sought to overturn a decision of the Planning and Development Court to dismiss an appeal against the Clarence City Council's refusal to grant development approval for a property in South Arm. The plaintiff argued that the decision was unreasonable and in breach of natural justice, as the Development Assessment Panel had failed to consider relevant information and had not properly applied the Town Planning Act.
The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the Town Planning Act and the principles of natural justice in the context of planning and development decisions. The court had to determine whether the Planning and Development Court had erred in its assessment of the evidence and in its application of the relevant statutory provisions.
In delivering the judgment, the Full Court found that the Planning and Development Court had indeed erred in its approach to the evidence and in its application of the law. The court held that the Development Assessment Panel had failed to adequately consider relevant information and had not properly applied the criteria set out in the Town Planning Act. The court also found that the Planning and Development Court had erred in its assessment of the evidence, leading to an unreasonable decision. The Full Court set aside the decision of the Planning and Development Court and remitted the matter back for reconsideration in accordance with the court's findings.
The Full Court's decision provided clear guidance on the proper interpretation and application of the Town Planning Act and the principles of natural justice in the context of planning and development decisions. The court's findings highlighted the importance of careful consideration of all relevant information and proper application of the statutory criteria in such decisions.
The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the Town Planning Act and the principles of natural justice in the context of planning and development decisions. The court had to determine whether the Planning and Development Court had erred in its assessment of the evidence and in its application of the relevant statutory provisions.
In delivering the judgment, the Full Court found that the Planning and Development Court had indeed erred in its approach to the evidence and in its application of the law. The court held that the Development Assessment Panel had failed to adequately consider relevant information and had not properly applied the criteria set out in the Town Planning Act. The court also found that the Planning and Development Court had erred in its assessment of the evidence, leading to an unreasonable decision. The Full Court set aside the decision of the Planning and Development Court and remitted the matter back for reconsideration in accordance with the court's findings.
The Full Court's decision provided clear guidance on the proper interpretation and application of the Town Planning Act and the principles of natural justice in the context of planning and development decisions. The court's findings highlighted the importance of careful consideration of all relevant information and proper application of the statutory criteria in such decisions.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.