Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Thursday, 20 July 2017 Summary

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA THURSDAY, 20 JULY 2017

HOBART

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

11:30 a.m.
Substituted Service
Perpetual Limited
v
Roderick Pennicott and anor

4:00 p.m.
Directions Hearing by Telephone
Jason Reid
v
Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd

4:15 p.m.
For Mention by Telephone
D.T.K. Logging Pty Ltd
v
Arthur j Gallagher & co (Aus) Limited

4:30 p.m.
For Mention by Telephone
Nicole Clarke
v
State of Tasmania and ors

LAUNCESTON

NO LIST FOR LAUNCESTON

BURNIE

NO LIST FOR BURNIE

(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

Perpetual Limited, along with two other parties, filed a case against Roderick Pennicott and another defendant. The nature of the dispute involves claims that were not specified in the document, but it is clear that the matter is being heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The case was scheduled for a directions hearing via video link from Launceston. This indicates the complexity of the case, as it necessitated remote participation, highlighting the need for detailed legal guidance and possibly significant financial or legal implications.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide pertain to the procedural aspects of the case, including whether substituted service was appropriately applied, and potentially the merits of the claims themselves. The court's role in this instance was to manage the procedural complexities and ensure that the case progresses in a manner that is fair and efficient. This would involve interpreting relevant laws and rules of court to determine the appropriate next steps.

The court's reasoning and outcome were not detailed in the document, but it is evident that the directions hearing was intended to clarify the procedural path forward. The court likely assessed the evidence presented, the arguments of the parties, and the relevant legal principles to provide clear directions for the case. The outcome would have provided guidance on how the case should proceed, potentially including orders for further documentation, scheduling of further hearings, or resolution of specific procedural issues.

The final orders of the court, while not specified in the document, would have been aimed at facilitating the progress of the case. These orders would typically include directives on timelines, procedural requirements, and potentially specific actions that the parties must undertake to move the case forward. The precise nature of these orders would depend on the court's assessment of the procedural and substantive issues at hand.

Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Thursday, 20 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established