LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA THURSDAY, 3 DECEMBER 2020
HOBART
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Civil Jurisdiction
2:00 p.m.
For Decision
Cambria Green Agriculture & Tourism Management Pty Ltd and ors
v
Tasmania Planning Commission and anor
PWR, Hobart, Salamanca Place
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15p.m
For Bail Application via video-link
from Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Michael William Hanlon
Geoffrey James Deverell
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Trial
Legal Profession Board Tasmania v WFL
(Part-heard)
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm
For Bail Consent
Scott Alfred Robertson
For Directions Hearing
Jason Clifford Gordon
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Court of Criminal Appeal
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm
For Directions Hearing
Tyler Anthony James Causon
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
3:00p.m.
For Bail Application
Casey Lee Smith
Jack Bradley Harvey
MMP
4:00p.m.
For Sentence
NLW
Emanette Kristin Leedham
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9:15a.m. via Skype
For Directions Hearing
ACN 125 152 310 Pty Ltd and anor v Rejinth Joseph and ors
For Directions Hearing
Mesh & Bar Pty Limited v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Limited and ors
For Directions Hearing
Estate of Hazel Joyce Jackson
For Directions Hearing
River Street Tas Pty Ltd v Australian Securities and Investment Commission
11:30a.m.
For Hearing via Skype
Linden Michael Forrest v Benjamin Dale Evans and ors
2:15p.m.
For Directions Hearing
Nathan Reginald Darke and anor as legal personal representatives of the estate of Simon Graham Darke and ors
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Hasley James Maynard
For Witness on Final Notice
For Trial
Ruhua Liu
Shayne Michael MurphyCourt 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15p.m
For Sentence via video link from
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
and to Risdon Prison Complex
AWB
For Bail Application via video link from
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie and to Hobart PWR
Michael William Hanlon
Geoffrey James Deverell
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Directions Hearing
Dane Ronald Pyke
LJDH
For Bail Variation
Morgan Joel Howard
4:15pm
For Bail Consent
David McGrath Smith
For Application
Sarah Rose Burrows
Terrence Leigh Adams
For Sentence via video link to
Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
and Risdon Prison Complex
AWB
For Bail Application via video link to
Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
and Hobart PWR
Michael William Hanlon
Details
- Case
- [2020] TASSCCourtlist 1135
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Cambria Green Agriculture & Tourism Management Pty Ltd and others brought a proceeding against the Tasmania Planning Commission and another party in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The nature of the dispute involves the planning approval granted for a development project. The court was required to decide whether the approval granted by the Tasmania Planning Commission was lawful and in accordance with the relevant planning legislation and whether the project would have any significant environmental impacts.
Justice Pearce examined the planning approval process and the relevant statutory provisions to determine if the approval was valid. The court also assessed the environmental impact assessments submitted by the parties and evaluated whether the potential environmental harm was adequately considered. The court considered whether the approval process complied with the statutory requirements and if the decision-makers exercised their discretion appropriately.
After thorough examination of the evidence and legal arguments presented, Justice Pearce concluded that the approval granted by the Tasmania Planning Commission was lawful and in accordance with the planning legislation. The court found that the approval process was followed correctly, and the decision-makers exercised their discretion appropriately. Furthermore, the court determined that the potential environmental impacts of the project were adequately assessed and mitigated.
As a result of this decision, the approval granted by the Tasmania Planning Commission for the development project is upheld. The court ruled in favour of the respondents, Cambria Green Agriculture & Tourism Management Pty Ltd and others. The applicants' challenge to the approval was dismissed.
Justice Pearce examined the planning approval process and the relevant statutory provisions to determine if the approval was valid. The court also assessed the environmental impact assessments submitted by the parties and evaluated whether the potential environmental harm was adequately considered. The court considered whether the approval process complied with the statutory requirements and if the decision-makers exercised their discretion appropriately.
After thorough examination of the evidence and legal arguments presented, Justice Pearce concluded that the approval granted by the Tasmania Planning Commission was lawful and in accordance with the planning legislation. The court found that the approval process was followed correctly, and the decision-makers exercised their discretion appropriately. Furthermore, the court determined that the potential environmental impacts of the project were adequately assessed and mitigated.
As a result of this decision, the approval granted by the Tasmania Planning Commission for the development project is upheld. The court ruled in favour of the respondents, Cambria Green Agriculture & Tourism Management Pty Ltd and others. The applicants' challenge to the approval was dismissed.
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.