LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA THURSDAY 10 DECEMBER 2020
HOBART
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Sentence
Robert Maxwell Brown
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m
For Directions Hearing via video-link to Court 1, Burnie
Damian Leslie Harper
For Directions Hearing
D J B
For Directions Hearing via video-link
K H L
11:00 a.m
For Sentencing Submissions
T W
4:15 p.m
For Sentence via video-link to Court 1, Burnie
Zane Colin Roy Sengstock
PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice Pearce
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm
For Sentencing Submissions via video link from Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
JWW Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Civil Jurisdiction
11:30 a.m.
For Application
Bradley James Walker and Ewa Walker
v
Clarence City Council
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Civil Jurisdiction
10.00am
For Trial
Tasmanian Land Company Ltd v Van Dairy Group Pty Ltd
(Part-heard)
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice Brett
Criminal Jurisdiction
4.15pm
For Sentencing Submissions
Hayden Joel Larner
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9:15a.m. via Skype to Supreme Court, Cameron Street, Launceston
For Setting down for Trial/Mediation
Nicholas Cashmore Dennis and anor v Mt Joy Pty Ltd and ors
For Directions
Konrad Peter Plachta as Administrator of the Estate of the Late Bettina Fairbairn v Nicholas Lachlan Fairbairn and ors
For Directions
Martin Edward Kavanagh v Robert Rodway
For Directions
Dale John Stacey v Narelle Ann Stacey
For Taking of Accounts
Amelia Jane Rowe v Terrence Andrews and ors
For Enter Judgment
Karen Murfit v Maxwell David Lockhart
9:30a.m. via Skype to Supreme Court, Cameron Street, Launceston
For Mortgagee Possession
Secure Funding Pty Ltd v Rowena Jane Tye
11:00a.m.
For Set Aside Service of Writ
Bulk Frozen Foods Pty Ltd v Donald Moylan as Trustee for The Colledge Moylan Family Trust Trading as Thermal Logic and anor
LAUNCESTON
Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice Pearce
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm
For Sentencing Submissions via video link from Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
JWW Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Trial
Hasley James Maynard
(part-heard)
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Sarah Charlotte Gray
For Bail Consent
Heath Maxwell Lethborg
Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9:15a.m. via Skype from Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
For Setting down for Trial/Mediation
Nicholas Cashmore Dennis and anor v Mt Joy Pty Ltd and ors
For Directions
Konrad Peter Plachta as Administrator of the Estate of the Late Bettina Fairbairn v Nicholas Lachlan Fairbairn and ors
For Directions
Martin Edward Kavanagh v Robert Rodway
For Directions
Dale John Stacey v Narelle Ann Stacey
For Taking of Accounts
Amelia Jane Rowe v Terrence Andrews and ors
For Enter Judgment
Karen Murfit v Maxwell David Lockhart
9:30a.m. via Skype from Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
For Mortgagee Possession
Secure Funding Pty Ltd v Rowena Jane Tye
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m
For Directions Hearing via video-link from Court 1,
Salamanca Place, Hobart
Damian Leslie Harper
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m
For Sentence via video-link from Court 1, Hobart
Zane Colin Roy Sengstock
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice Pearce
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Trial
Dane Ronald Pyke
4:15pm
For Sentencing Submissions via video link to Wilfred Lopes Centre, Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston and PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Details
- Case
- [2020] TASSCCourtlist 1141
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court heard sentencing submissions for Robert Maxwell Brown, Damian Leslie Harper, Zane Colin Roy Sengstock, and Hayden Joel Larner, among others. The nature of the dispute involved criminal charges and sentencing submissions. The court was the Supreme Court of Tasmania, operating in various locations, including Hobart, Launceston, and Burnie. The court also heard applications and directions hearings in civil cases, such as Bradley James Walker and Ewa Walker v Clarence City Council and Tasmanian Land Company Ltd v Van Dairy Group Pty Ltd.
The legal issues the court was required to decide involved sentencing submissions for various criminal cases, determining appropriate penalties for the defendants based on the severity of their crimes and any mitigating or aggravating factors. The court also had to consider the applications and directions hearings in civil cases, ensuring that the proceedings were proceeding appropriately and in line with the law.
The court's reasoning and outcome varied depending on the specific case. In the criminal cases, the court considered the evidence presented, the severity of the crimes, and any mitigating or aggravating factors before determining the appropriate sentence for each defendant. In the civil cases, the court ensured that the proceedings were proceeding appropriately and in line with the law. The final outcome of each case would have been determined by the specific circumstances and evidence presented.
If necessary, the court may have made final orders in each case, such as imposing a specific sentence on a defendant or providing directions for the proceedings to continue. The specific final orders would have been determined by the outcome of each case and the court's reasoning.
The legal issues the court was required to decide involved sentencing submissions for various criminal cases, determining appropriate penalties for the defendants based on the severity of their crimes and any mitigating or aggravating factors. The court also had to consider the applications and directions hearings in civil cases, ensuring that the proceedings were proceeding appropriately and in line with the law.
The court's reasoning and outcome varied depending on the specific case. In the criminal cases, the court considered the evidence presented, the severity of the crimes, and any mitigating or aggravating factors before determining the appropriate sentence for each defendant. In the civil cases, the court ensured that the proceedings were proceeding appropriately and in line with the law. The final outcome of each case would have been determined by the specific circumstances and evidence presented.
If necessary, the court may have made final orders in each case, such as imposing a specific sentence on a defendant or providing directions for the proceedings to continue. The specific final orders would have been determined by the outcome of each case and the court's reasoning.
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.