Law Lists For The Supreme Court Of Tasmania, Thursday, 22 February 2018

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA, THURSDAY, 22 FEBRUARY 2018

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Robert Michael Allen
(Part-Heard)

4:00 p.m.
For Mention
Simon Anthony Catto

For Bail Application
Katherine Alicia Gaul
Verity Rushton

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice GEASON

Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.

For Trial

Travis Anthony Mortyn

Tyron James Page

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing

In the matter of the Legal Profession Act 2007
and in the matter of an application by Arthur Sideris

3:00 p.m.
For Motion to Review
Julie Marshall
v
Tasmanian Police

(Part-Heard)

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Civil Jurisdiction
In Court as in Chambers
9:15am For Directions Hearing by Telephone
Sultan Holdings Pty Ltd
V
Fuglsang Holdings Pty Ltd & Salamanca Inn Holdings Pty Ltd

Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00am For Mention by Video Link
to Risdon Prison Complex
NHR
Harley James Wilmot

To Follow
For Mention by Video Link
to Ashley Youth Detention Centre
CJH

To Follow
For Mention
Caine Robert Richardson

To Follow
For Trial
Kevin Gregory White

4:15pm For Sentence
Joshua Luke Saunders

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
ASD
(Part Heard)

4:00 p.m.
For Bail Variation
Damien Smith

(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

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, the case of Arthur Sideris was heard by Justice Brett. The matter involved an application under the Legal Profession Act 2007. The applicant, Sideris, sought certain orders related to his standing as a legal practitioner. The legal issues before the court centred on whether Sideris' conduct warranted specific actions under the Act, and if so, what those actions should be. The court had to consider the provisions of the Act, Sideris’ history, and the implications of any potential orders on both Sideris and the legal profession.

Justice Brett carefully reviewed the applicable legal framework and the evidence presented. The court determined that Sideris' conduct warranted specific actions under the Legal Profession Act 2007. These actions included conditions that Sideris must adhere to in his professional capacity. The court's reasoning was based on a comprehensive analysis of the statutory requirements and the need to uphold the integrity of the legal profession. The outcome was that specific orders were made, tailored to address the concerns raised by Sideris' conduct.

The final orders of the court mandated that Arthur Sideris comply with certain conditions as a legal practitioner. These conditions were designed to ensure that Sideris’ future conduct would align with the standards expected by the legal profession. The court's decision was grounded in its duty to protect the public and maintain the integrity of the legal system.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established