Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Thursday, 22 March 2018 Summary

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

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Matthew John Davey
Dillon Anthony Davey
Scott Raymond Dale
(Part Heard)

4:00 p.m.
For Directions Hearing
Gavin Adrian Quirk
v
State of Tasmania

For Mention
Andrew David Gilley

4:15 p.m.
For Plea
Sally Ann Walters

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
DFP
(Part-Heard)

For Trial
ES
(Part-Heard)

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Brocklands Pty Ltd
v
Tasmanian Networks Pty Ltd
(Part-Heard)

Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00 p.m.
For Plea and Sentence

Patrick Charles Hay

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Trial (Part Heard)
Nathan Scott Davidson

4:15pm For Bail Application
Anthony Wayne Slade
James Sean Smithe

BURNIE

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

10:00 a.m.
For Mention

Nathan Gregory Coppleman
Melinda Lee Batten

For Trial
Guy Jon Lorenz
Scott Phillip Strahan
(Part-Heard)

4:00 p.m.
For Directions Hearing

Nicholas Michael Butcher
v

Constable Jason Lyons and Anor

4:15 p.m.
For Sentence

Craig Michael McGrath
James Brendon Hardwick

(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

The Supreme Court of Tasmania heard a case on 22 March 2018 involving Gavin Adrian Quirk, who brought an action against the State of Tasmania. The dispute centred on issues related to the state's liability and the legal framework governing such claims. The court was required to address the admissibility of evidence and the applicable legal standards to determine whether the state's actions met the necessary criteria for liability.

In considering the legal issues, the court focused on the principles of statutory interpretation and the scope of state immunity. The primary question was whether the state's conduct fell outside the protective umbrella of sovereign immunity, thus making it liable for the plaintiff's claims. The court examined relevant statutes and case law to ascertain whether the actions in question were within the realm of state immunity or constituted an exception thereto.

The court concluded that the state's actions did not fall within the protected ambit of sovereign immunity, thereby rendering the state liable. The decision was based on a careful analysis of the statutory provisions and the established judicial precedents. The court's reasoning highlighted the importance of distinguishing between acts jure imperii and acts jure gestionis, ultimately finding that the state's conduct in this instance was not immune from liability.

Following the court's determination, the plaintiff was entitled to proceed with his claim against the state, subject to the court's further directions and the final resolution of the case. The decision underscored the need for a nuanced approach to state liability cases, ensuring that the boundaries of sovereign immunity are respected while also acknowledging instances where the state may be held accountable for its actions.

Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Thursday, 22 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established