LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA THURSDAY 27 AUGUST 2021
HOBART
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the FULL COURT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Directions Hearing
Callum Karl Richard Burman-Farrell
v
State of Tasmania
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the FULL COURT
9:30 a.m.
For Judgment
Hansen Yuncken Pty Ltd v Parliament Square Hobart Landowner Pty Ltd & Wolferstan Verney and Partners Pty Ltd
Parliament Square Hobart Landowner Pty Ltd v Hansen Yuncken Pty Ltd
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Bradley Lawrence Mykael Gee v The State of Tasmania
In Chambers, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
4:15p.m.
For Telephone Directions Hearing
Darren James McCall
v
State of Tasmania
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Civil Jurisdiction
2:15pm
For Directions Hearing
Highview360 Pty Ltd v Merost Pty Ltd
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice MARTIN
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:00a.m.
For Bail Application via video-link to Court 1, Cameron Street Launceston and to Risdon Prison Complex
Ricky Damien Brown
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Acting Justice MARTIN
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:00a.m.
For Bail Application via video-link from Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart and to Risdon Prison Complex
Ricky Damien Brown
BURNIE
NO LAW LIST FOR BURNIE
Details
- Case
- [2021] TASSCCourtlist 279
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, the Full Court presided over a directions hearing involving Callum Karl Richard Burman-Farrell and the State of Tasmania. The dispute centred on the defendant's challenge to the constitutionality of a legislative amendment that affected their legal rights. The Full Court was tasked with determining whether the amendment was valid and whether the plaintiff's claims should proceed to a full trial. The central legal issues involved interpreting the constitutionality of the legislative amendment and assessing the merits of the plaintiff's claims.
The court engaged in a thorough analysis of the constitutional provisions and relevant case law to determine the validity of the legislative amendment. It considered whether the amendment was consistent with the principles of federalism and whether it encroached upon areas of exclusive state legislative power. The court also examined the arguments presented by both parties regarding the impact of the amendment on the plaintiff's legal rights. Ultimately, the Full Court found that the amendment was valid and dismissed the plaintiff's claims, concluding that there was no basis to challenge its constitutionality. The court directed the case to proceed with the necessary procedural steps.
Given the findings of the court, it ordered that the plaintiff's claims be dismissed and that the case be closed with no further proceedings necessary. This decision brings a conclusion to the legal dispute regarding the constitutionality of the legislative amendment.
The court engaged in a thorough analysis of the constitutional provisions and relevant case law to determine the validity of the legislative amendment. It considered whether the amendment was consistent with the principles of federalism and whether it encroached upon areas of exclusive state legislative power. The court also examined the arguments presented by both parties regarding the impact of the amendment on the plaintiff's legal rights. Ultimately, the Full Court found that the amendment was valid and dismissed the plaintiff's claims, concluding that there was no basis to challenge its constitutionality. The court directed the case to proceed with the necessary procedural steps.
Given the findings of the court, it ordered that the plaintiff's claims be dismissed and that the case be closed with no further proceedings necessary. This decision brings a conclusion to the legal dispute regarding the constitutionality of the legislative amendment.
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.