LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA THURSDAY, 2 APRIL 2020
HOBART
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Sentence via telephone
Leigh Brian McRedmond
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice MARSHALL
Civil Jurisdiction
2:15pm
For Hearing via telephone
Marie Lynette Bukewitsch (by her litigation guardian
Troy Bukewitsch) v Stanley Goodman
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9.30 am
Secure Funding Pty Ltd v Amanda Woodward
Possession – First return
Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd
v Mark Jones
Possession – First return
National Australia Bank Limited v
Bernadine Anne Van Der Heyden
Possession – First return
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Plea via Video Link
Kurt Stanley James
For Bail Consent
Stephen Clement Burton
BURNIE
NO LAW LIST FOR BURNIE
Details
- Case
- [2020] TASSCCourtlist 127
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Supreme Court of Tasmania presided over a number of cases, one of which involved a sentencing hearing for Leigh Brian McRedmond. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for Mr. McRedmond after he had been found guilty of an offence. Another case involved Marie Lynette Bukewitsch, represented by her litigation guardian Troy Bukewitsch, who was suing Stanley Goodman. The court had to decide on the merits of the claim and whether the defendant was liable for the alleged wrongs. Additionally, there were several possession cases where the courts had to determine whether the respective plaintiffs were entitled to possession of certain properties.
In the case of McRedmond, the court considered the nature and circumstances of the offence, as well as relevant sentencing principles and the offender's personal circumstances, to determine an appropriate sentence. Regarding the Bukewitsch v Goodman case, the court had to examine the evidence presented by both parties and apply relevant legal principles to decide whether the defendant was liable for the plaintiff's alleged losses. In the possession cases, the court assessed the evidence to determine whether the plaintiffs had established their right to possession of the properties in question.
The court found Leigh Brian McRedmond guilty of his offence and sentenced him accordingly, taking into account the circumstances of the case and relevant sentencing principles. In the Bukewitsch v Goodman case, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, finding the defendant liable for the alleged wrongs and ordering him to compensate the plaintiff. In the possession cases, the court found in favour of the plaintiffs and ordered the defendants to vacate the properties in question.
In the case of McRedmond, the court considered the nature and circumstances of the offence, as well as relevant sentencing principles and the offender's personal circumstances, to determine an appropriate sentence. Regarding the Bukewitsch v Goodman case, the court had to examine the evidence presented by both parties and apply relevant legal principles to decide whether the defendant was liable for the plaintiff's alleged losses. In the possession cases, the court assessed the evidence to determine whether the plaintiffs had established their right to possession of the properties in question.
The court found Leigh Brian McRedmond guilty of his offence and sentenced him accordingly, taking into account the circumstances of the case and relevant sentencing principles. In the Bukewitsch v Goodman case, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, finding the defendant liable for the alleged wrongs and ordering him to compensate the plaintiff. In the possession cases, the court found in favour of the plaintiffs and ordered the defendants to vacate the properties in question.
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.