LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA, THURSDAY 3 JUNE 2021
HOBART
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before FULL COURT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:30am
For Decision
Cambria Green Agriculture & Tourism Management Pty Ltd v Attorney-General
Court 1, Salamanca Place, HobartBefore Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m
For Sentencing Submissions
Cassandra Helene Murray
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Plea
Jason Clifford Gordon
For Bail Application
Braydon Eugene Kelleher
For Bail Application
Nathan Baden Roy Whelan
For Bail Consent
Shaun Edward Hodges
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
09:30a.m.
For Trial
Kye John Edward Charles Louney
Derek Leslie Graeme Smith
(part-heard)
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice MARSHALL
2:00p.m.
For Sentence via video-link from Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Jacob Alexander Ralph Haworth
3:00p.m.
For Bail Application via video-link from Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston and to Risdon Prison Complex
Kyam Keith Broadby
4:00p.m.
For Sentence via video-link from Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Jordan John Lawrie
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Acting Justice MARSHALL
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:00p.m.
For Sentence via video-link to Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Jacob Alexander Ralph Haworth
3:00p.m.
For Bail Application via video-link to Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart and to Risdon Prison Complex
Kyam Keith Broadby
4:00p.m.
For Sentence via video-link to Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Jordan John Lawrie
BURNIE
NO LAW LIST
Details
- Case
- [2021] TASSCCourtlist 171
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Cambria Green Agriculture and Tourism Management Pty Ltd v Attorney-General was heard by the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The plaintiff, Cambria Green, sought to challenge the validity of a legislative instrument under the Tasmanian planning laws, which affected its ability to proceed with a proposed agricultural and tourism development. The Attorney-General defended the legislative instrument as being within the scope of the legislative authority.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the legislative instrument was validly made and consistent with the enabling legislation. This involved examining the extent of the legislative authority granted under the relevant planning laws and whether the instrument fell within that authority. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the instrument complied with any procedural requirements set out in the legislation, and whether it was reasonably necessary to achieve the intended purpose.
In its reasoning, the court meticulously reviewed the enabling legislation and the legislative instrument in question. The court found that the legislative instrument was validly made and within the legislative authority provided by the planning laws. It concluded that the instrument was necessary to achieve the legislative purpose and complied with any procedural requirements. Therefore, the challenge by Cambria Green was dismissed, and the legislative instrument upheld.
The final orders of the court were that Cambria Green's challenge to the legislative instrument was dismissed, and the legislative instrument remained valid. Cambria Green was ordered to pay the Attorney-General's costs of the proceeding.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the legislative instrument was validly made and consistent with the enabling legislation. This involved examining the extent of the legislative authority granted under the relevant planning laws and whether the instrument fell within that authority. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the instrument complied with any procedural requirements set out in the legislation, and whether it was reasonably necessary to achieve the intended purpose.
In its reasoning, the court meticulously reviewed the enabling legislation and the legislative instrument in question. The court found that the legislative instrument was validly made and within the legislative authority provided by the planning laws. It concluded that the instrument was necessary to achieve the legislative purpose and complied with any procedural requirements. Therefore, the challenge by Cambria Green was dismissed, and the legislative instrument upheld.
The final orders of the court were that Cambria Green's challenge to the legislative instrument was dismissed, and the legislative instrument remained valid. Cambria Green was ordered to pay the Attorney-General's costs of the proceeding.
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.