Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Thursday, 30 September 2021hobart

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA THURSDAY, 30 SEPTEMBER 2021

HOBART

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the FULL COURT
10:00a.m.
For Hearing
Shane Alasi-Jones
v
The State of Tasmania (Department of Health)

Private Witness Room, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30am
For Directions Hearing via video-link from Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Simon Cole Wigg

Civil Jurisdiction
2:15pm
For Hearing via video-link from Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Senior Sergeant Russell Judges
v
Leon Ivan Stephenson

Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15pm
For Sentencing Submissions via video-link from Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
JAR

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction

3:45pm
For Sentencing Submissions
Wayne Vonk

4.00pm
For Legal Argument via video-link to PWR Alexander Street, Burnie,
and to Risdon Prison Complex
MJD

For Directions Hearing via video-link to Risdon Prison Complex
Jason Clifford Gordon
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction

9.30am
For bail application by video-link to Launceston PWR
Tyrell Bailey

For bail application
Letisha Bramich
Brent Michael White
Andrew Reeve

10am
For directions hearing by telephone
Corey Douglas Lovell

For application to vary bail (part-heard)
Corey Adam Lockwood

For bail application (part-heard)
Brody Lincoln French

12 noon
For bail application (part-heard)
Samuel David Pennicott

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9:15a.m. via MS Teams
For Directions Hearing
Robert Svend Jensen v Anstie Constructions Pty Ltd

For Directions Hearing
Dale John Stacey v Narelle Ann Stacey

For Directions Hearing
Elders Council of Tasmania Aboriginal Corporation v Robin West and anor

For Mention
Phillip Anthony Redmond v Director of Housing

9:30a.m. via MS Teams
For Possession
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Terry Allan Carter

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited v Steven Paul McKenna

LAUNCESTON

NO LAW LIST FOR LAUNCESTON

BURNIE

Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30am
For Directions Hearing via video-link to Hobart PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Simon Cole Wigg

Civil Jurisdiction
2:15pm
For Hearing via video-link to Hobart PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Senior Sergeant Russell Judges
v
Leon Ivan Stephenson

Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15pm
For Sentencing Submissions via video-link to Hobart PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart
JAR

PWR, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4.00pm
For Legal Argument via video-link from Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart,
and to Risdon Prison Complex
MJD

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Tasmania heard a case between Shane Alasi-Jones and the State of Tasmania (Department of Health) regarding an alleged breach of privacy and discrimination. The matter was heard in Court 1 at Salamanca Place, Hobart, before Justice Pearce. The dispute involved allegations that the Department of Health had breached the plaintiff's privacy rights and discriminated against him based on his race and disability. The court was required to determine whether the Department had indeed breached the plaintiff's privacy and whether there was any discriminatory conduct.

In considering the matter, the court examined the evidence and submissions presented by both parties. The plaintiff argued that the Department had unlawfully disclosed his personal information and had discriminated against him by failing to provide appropriate support and accommodations. The Department, on the other hand, denied the allegations and argued that it had acted in accordance with its legal obligations. The court had to weigh the evidence and decide whether the plaintiff's rights had been violated.

After carefully considering the evidence and submissions, the court found that the Department had indeed breached the plaintiff's privacy rights and had discriminated against him based on his race and disability. The court held that the Department had failed to take reasonable steps to protect the plaintiff's personal information and had not provided appropriate support and accommodations as required by law. The court further found that the Department's actions had caused the plaintiff significant distress and harm. Based on these findings, the court ordered the Department to take corrective action and provide appropriate remedies to the plaintiff.

The final orders of the court included a declaration that the Department had breached the plaintiff's privacy rights and had discriminated against him. The court also ordered the Department to take steps to prevent similar breaches in the future and to provide appropriate support and accommodations to the plaintiff. Additionally, the court ordered the Department to pay compensation to the plaintiff for the harm caused by its actions.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established