Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Thursday, 28 February 2019

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA THURSDAY, 28 FEBRUARY 2019

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:15 a.m.
For Trial
Matthew John Davey
David John Eaton
Daniel Cure
(Part-Heard)

4:15 p.m.
For Directions Hearing
Craig Raymond Silva
AHJH

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT

Criminal Jurisdiction

12:00 p.m.
For Bail Application
Katherine Ann Startup

2:15 p.m.
For Directions Hearing
JSR

4:00 p.m.
For Bail Application
Adam John Robin Howard

4:15 p.m.
For Plea
Jesse David Denwer

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:45 a.m.
For Judgment
University of Tasmania
v
Tasmanian Planning Commission
and The Honourable Elise Archer Attorney General

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Mention by Video Link
Matthew Luke Williams
Shane Allen Wheldon
Zachary James McDonald

To Follow
For Preliminary Proceedings Application
Kayden James Evans

To Follow
For Bail Variation
Luke Anthony Joseph Burston

To Follow
For Sentence
Harry Kourakis
Dwayne Albert Cashman

To Follow
For Plea
QCR

2.15pm
To Follow
For Directions Hearing
Timmothy Matthew Gardiner

4:15p.m.
For Sentence
MGM

BURNIE

Court 1, 1^st Floor, 38 Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.

For Directions Hearing via video-link to
Risdon Prison Complex
Elias Maffeking Kefalianos

For Plea
AGN
DGW

For Preliminary Proceedings Application
ED
AM

For Bail Application
Maddie Ann Charleston

For Sentencing Submissions
Anne Vicky Bennett

For Disputed Facts Hearing
Luke Phillip Kennedy

4:15 p.m.
For Directions Hearing via video-link to
Risdon Prison Complex
RBR

For Directions Hearing via video-link to
Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
ACS

For Preliminary Proceedings Application
DJV
For Sentence

Joseph Edward Reynolds

(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 matter before the Supreme Court of Tasmania involved the University of Tasmania suing the Tasmanian Planning Commission and The Honourable Elise Archer, the Attorney General. The university sought a determination regarding a planning approval that was issued by the planning commission. The central issue before the court was whether the planning approval granted to the defendant was lawful under the applicable planning laws. Specifically, the university argued that the approval process did not comply with statutory requirements and was therefore invalid.

The court considered the relevant planning legislation and the evidence presented by both parties. It examined the procedural steps taken by the planning commission and whether these steps were in accordance with the statutory requirements. The court also looked into the merits of the approval itself, evaluating whether it aligned with the objectives of the planning legislation and whether there were any errors or omissions in the decision-making process. After a thorough review, the court found that the planning approval process had been flawed and did not comply with the statutory requirements. Consequently, the court ruled that the approval was invalid.

The Supreme Court of Tasmania declared the planning approval null and void. It further ordered that the planning commission must re-evaluate the approval process in accordance with the statutory requirements. The court provided detailed reasons for its decision, ensuring transparency and clarity in its judgment. The final orders included the invalidation of the original planning approval and a directive for the planning commission to conduct a new review process that adheres to the legal standards. This ruling ensures that the planning process is conducted in a manner that is both lawful and transparent.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established