LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA, THURSDAY, 26 SEPTEMBER 2019
HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Bradley Scott Purkiss
Margaret Anne Otto
(part-heard)
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Mention
R P P
Witness on Final Notice
Cameron James Riley
For Trial
Benjamin Victor Thorp
(part-heard)
4:15p.m.
For Sentence
Christopher Michael Goss
For Sentencing Submissions
Kylie Jane Hack
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:45 a.m.
For Admission to the Legal Profession
Caitlin Kumiko Fife
Rose Matilda Mackie
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
JSP
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Facts and Sentence
Simone Helen Barratt
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
10 am
Henry Robert Atkinson v University of Tasmania
Injunction
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Mention
Chev Lee Deacon and Jaxson Paul Foster
To Follow:
For Preliminary Proceedings Application
John Gregory Peck
To Follow:
For Trial
Jarrod Robert Ward
4:15p.m.
For Mention via Video Link
Bradley Mark Riley
To Follow:
For Cancellation of a Drug Treatment Order
Richard Francis Clarke
To Follow:
For Application for Breach of Order
Troy Anton Lovell
To Follow:
For Plea
Billy Galvin Gordon Riley
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice BRETT
9:30a.m.
For Trial (part heard)
Ryan Andrew Shackcloth
4:15p.m.
For Mention
Felicia Ann Jackson
For Sentence
Adrianne Lee Baugh
Brendan Leigh Barker
For Plea
Matthew David Gillies
MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:
- AGLC
- Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Thursday, 26 September 2019 [2019] TASSCCourtlist 182
- Case
- [2019] TASSCCourtlist 182
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In delivering the judgment, Justice Holt considered the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The court determined that Atkinson was not entitled to the injunction he sought. The University had acted within its rights and there were no grounds for the court to grant an injunction. The court found that Atkinson’s claims did not meet the legal threshold for such a remedy.
As a result of the court’s determination, Atkinson’s application for an injunction against the University of Tasmania was dismissed. Justice Holt provided detailed reasoning for the decision, ensuring that both parties understood the basis on which the injunction was denied. This conclusion marked the end of the proceedings in this particular matter.
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.