Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Monday, 6 August 2018

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA MONDAY, 6 AUGUST 2018

HOBART

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Eleni Koulmandas

(Part-Heard)

4:15 p.m.
For Preliminary Proceedings by video link
GLF

(Part-Heard)

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:45 a.m.
For Judgment
Nicholas Stephen Evans
v
Katie Maree Job

To Follow
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Luke George Jones
Michael William Triffitt
Gregory James Brown
A Witness

For Trial
Adam Daniel Patterson
A Witness

4:00 p.m.
For Bail Application
Corey Anning
Darren White

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Directions Hearing via Video Link
to Risdon Prison Complex
Zachary Dylan Wright
Lai Le

For Directions Hearing
Justin Thomas Knott
Nicholas Edward Wright

For Trial
Emma Louise Bishop
Casey Richard Cowen
Joel Darren Andrew Cowen

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Commissioner of State Revenue
v

Melbourne's Cheapest Cars Pty Ltd atf The Abelnica Trust

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice BRETT

Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00am For Mention
Beau Anthony Weily
Benjamin Andrew Stebbeings
Jeremy John Fuller

To Follow
For Trial

Anthony Colin Finnegan

4:15pm For Plea
Leonard William Riley

BURNIE

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

10:00a.m.
For Mention
Adam James Orme

To Follow
For Directions Hearing
Vanessa Rae Hardwick

To Follow
For Special Hearing
Raymond Pennington
Barry William Evans

4:15p.m.
For Directions Hearing via Video Link
to Risdon Prison Complex

Nathan Scott Davidson

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

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:
subscriptions to the law lists of other courts can be requested at:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Tasmania convened on 6 August 2018, with several cases scheduled for hearing. One notable case was that of Nicholas Stephen Evans v Katie Maree Job. The nature of the dispute involved a civil matter, with the specifics of the litigation undisclosed in the extract provided. The case was heard before Justice ESTCOURT in Hobart. Another case of interest was that of Commissioner of State Revenue v Melbourne's Cheapest Cars Pty Ltd atf The Abelnica Trust, which was set for hearing in Launceston before Justice BRETT. This case pertained to a matter of state revenue, likely involving tax or fiscal disputes.

The legal issues the court was required to decide in these cases encompassed a range of civil and criminal matters. In the case of Nicholas Stephen Evans v Katie Maree Job, the precise legal issues were not detailed, but they could have involved property, contractual obligations, or personal injury claims, among other possibilities. The Commissioner of State Revenue v Melbourne's Cheapest Cars Pty Ltd atf The Abelnica Trust case likely revolved around the interpretation of tax laws, compliance issues, or the validity of certain fiscal transactions. The court had to interpret relevant statutes, examine the facts presented, and apply appropriate legal principles to reach a decision.

In delivering the judgment, the court meticulously analysed the evidence and arguments presented. The reasoning and outcome of each case were tailored to the specific facts and legal principles applicable. For instance, in the civil dispute between Nicholas Stephen Evans and Katie Maree Job, the court would have considered the merits of each party's claims and defences, the weight of the evidence, and the relevant legal standards. Similarly, in the tax dispute involving the Commissioner of State Revenue and Melbourne's Cheapest Cars Pty Ltd, the court would have evaluated the tax assessments, the company's compliance with tax laws, and the validity of any claims for refunds or adjustments. The final outcome of each case would have been determined based on this rigorous analysis.

The final orders of the court were not explicitly stated in the provided extract. However, it can be inferred that the court would have issued judgments or rulings that resolved the legal disputes in accordance with the applicable laws and evidence presented. These orders would have provided the necessary directions or remedies to the parties involved, thereby concluding the respective cases.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established