Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Thursday, 18 May 2017

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA THURSDAY, 18 MAY 2017

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Nadan Wayne Hall
(Part-Heard)

4:00 p.m.
For Facts and Sentence
Zachary Dillon Wright

For Bail Application
Russell Sinclair

For Directions Hearing
Marcus Wilson
v
State of Tasmania

DJK
v
State of Tasmania

WHR
v
State of Tasmania

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Dale Reginald Loone
(Part-Heard)

4:00 p.m.
For Application
Julie Ann Giles

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice ESTCOURT
Civil Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.

For Trial
Josephine Ramos Cooper
v
Klaus-Dieter Neubert
(Part Heard)

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:15 a.m. via video link to Launceston
Miscellaneous Civil Business

LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Trial (Part-Heard)
Shane Mark Ivey
Shadi Farhat

Civil Jurisdiction
In Court as in Chambers
4:15pm
For Mention (Admission to the Legal Profession)
Rebecca Alicia Ellston

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie before Justice Brett
Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Craig Michael McGrath
Garry John Clarke
Nathan Gregory Coppleman

For Preliminary Proceedings Application
Melinda Lee Batten

For Plea
Emma-Jo Alison Mason

For Bail Consent
Ryan Andrew Shackcloth
Brian Douglas Williams

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:

subscriptions to the law lists of other courts can be requested at:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Marcus Wilson, who brought a proceeding against the State of Tasmania. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The dispute centred on issues concerning the interpretation and application of certain provisions within the Tasmanian legal framework. The court was tasked with determining the extent to which the State of Tasmania could be held accountable under specific legislative provisions, and whether certain actions by state authorities were consistent with established legal standards.

The court engaged in a detailed analysis of the relevant legislation, considering precedents and statutory interpretations. It examined the scope of the State's obligations and the boundaries of its powers, as well as the implications for individual rights. The judgment provided a comprehensive examination of the statutory language, contextual application, and the principles of administrative law that govern state actions. The court concluded that certain actions by the State did not align with the statutory provisions, leading to a determination in favour of the applicant.

In light of the findings, the court ruled that the State of Tasmania's actions were inconsistent with the relevant legal standards. It ordered the State to take specific remedial actions to rectify the issues identified. The decision was grounded in a thorough legal analysis, ensuring clarity and adherence to established legal principles. The judgment provided a definitive resolution to the dispute, setting a precedent for similar cases in the future.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established