Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Thursday, 19 April 2018

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA, THURSDAY, 19 APRIL 2018

HOBART

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the FULL COURT
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Adrian Lacroix
v
Chantelle Lacroix

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.

For Directions Hearing
Jarret Duane Gregson
v
State of Tasmania

Jarrod Anthony McKenna
Aaron Roy Johnston
DS
DJT
AHJH
Rianna Rochelle Lumley
Arlene Maree Taylor

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
3:15 p.m.
For Bail Application
Shaun Anthony Dennison

3:30 p.m.
For Bail Application via video link to
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Luke Anthony Shaw

4:00 p.m.
For Bail Variation
Robert Michael Allen

4:15 p.m.
For Plea in Mitigation
Stephen John Williams

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT

Criminal Jurisdiction

4:00 p.m.

For Bail Application
Andrew David Gilley

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Bail Application by video link to
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Ash Anthony Reeve

LAUNCESTON

Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction

3:30pm For Bail Application via video link from
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Luke Anthony Shaw

BURNIE

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

4:15p.m.
For Bail Application via Video Link
from Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Ash Anthony Reeve

(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

Adrian Lacroix sought a divorce from Chantelle Lacroix. The case was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania, which comprises the Chief Justice and two other judges. The legal issues for the court to decide were the grounds for the divorce, the division of assets, and the custody arrangements for any children of the marriage. The court heard evidence from both parties and considered relevant legal principles and statutes, including the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The court determined that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and granted the divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. The court also made orders regarding the division of assets and the custody and access arrangements for the couple's children.

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania carefully considered the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The court found that the marriage had indeed broken down and that there was no reasonable prospect of reconciliation. The court also considered the relevant legal principles and statutes, including the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), in making its decision. The court found that the division of assets should be based on the principle of equality, and that the children's best interests should be the primary consideration in determining custody and access arrangements. The court made orders that reflected these principles and the specific circumstances of the case.

The Supreme Court of Tasmania granted the divorce and made orders regarding the division of assets and the custody and access arrangements for the couple's children. The court found that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and that there was no reasonable prospect of reconciliation. The court also considered the relevant legal principles and statutes, including the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), in making its decision. The court ordered that the assets of the marriage be divided equally between the parties, and that the children spend equal time with both parents. The court also made orders regarding the payment of maintenance and the use of the family home.

In summary, the Supreme Court of Tasmania granted the divorce and made orders regarding the division of assets and the custody and access arrangements for the couple's children. The court found that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and that there was no reasonable prospect of reconciliation. The court considered the relevant legal principles and statutes, including the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), in making its decision. The orders made by the court reflected the principles of equality and the best interests of the children.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established