Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Thursday 4 April 2019

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA THURSDAY 4 APRIL 2019

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Teniel Maree Moore
(Part-Heard)

4:00 p.m.
For Directions Hearing via video link to Risdon Prison Complex
Dallas John Eaves

For Sentence
Shannon Myree Arnold
Christopher Patrick Direen

4:15 p.m.
Bail Application
Yonnie Judith Kiel

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction

4:15 p.m.
For Sentencing Submissions

Matthew John Davey
David John Eaton
Daniel Cure
(Part-Heard)

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice ESTCOURT

Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Cody Steven Faltusz
(Part-Heard)

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Civil Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Anthony Paul Gamble & ors
v
Kingborough Council

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction

9:15 a.m. via Video link to Launceston
Miscellaneous Civil Business

11:00 a.m.
Extend Caveat
Katherine Anne Lowing and anor
v
38 Waterworks Road Pty Ltd

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction

9:15am For Trial
Matthew James Badkin

10:00am For Application
Gemma Elizabeth Clark

4:15pm For Bail Application
Luke Anthony Shaw

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice BRETT
Civil Jurisdiction

10:00am For Motion to Review
Acting Sergeant Michael Bonde
v
Daniel James Bluett

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction

9:00 a.m.
For Directions Hearing via video link to Risdon Prison Complex
Trent James Jones

For Directions Hearing
DJV
RDH
Jessie Emilia Robinson

For Preliminary Proceedings
Kayden John Bramich
Luke Matthew Ashman
RDB

For Sentencing Submissions via video link to Launceston Supreme Court
IBF

9:30 a.m.
For Bail Application and Preliminary Proceedings via video link to Launceston Remand Centre
Dane Ronald Pyke

For Directions Hearing and Bail Application via video link to Launceston Remand Centre
Tracey Riley-Davis
Amanda Richardson

For Preliminary Proceedings
Logan Jon Wilson-Smith

10:00 a.m.
For Preliminary Proceedings
Felicia Ann Jackson

For Plea
Yarda Brian Broucek
JAR

For Bail Consent
TWS
David Ronald Smith
MBR

(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 case of Anthony Paul Gamble and others versus Kingborough Council was heard by the Supreme Court of Tasmania in Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart. The dispute revolves around an issue of civil jurisdiction where the plaintiffs, Anthony Paul Gamble and others, are contesting a matter against Kingborough Council. The case was heard before Justice Escott, who was tasked with determining the legal issues presented in the dispute.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Kingborough Council had acted within its powers and in accordance with the law when it made certain decisions that are now being contested by the plaintiffs. This involved an examination of the relevant statutory provisions, the scope of the council’s authority, and whether procedural fairness was observed in the decision-making process. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the plaintiffs had standing to bring the proceedings and if the claims were justiciable.

In reaching its decision, the court meticulously reviewed the legislative framework governing the Kingborough Council's powers and the procedural requirements mandated by law. Justice Escott assessed the evidence and submissions made by both parties to determine if the council’s actions were lawful and justified. The court found that the Kingborough Council had indeed acted within its statutory authority and that the procedural fairness was maintained. Consequently, the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed, and the council's decisions were upheld.

As a result of the court's findings, the plaintiffs' claims against Kingborough Council were dismissed, and the council's decisions were affirmed. The court's judgment concluded that the Kingborough Council had not exceeded its powers and had acted in accordance with the law.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established