LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA THURSDAY, 4 NOVEMBER 2021
HOBART
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Motion to Review
Troy Anthony Colin Clark
v
The State of Tasmania
2:15 p.m.
For Decision
Greenham Tasmania Pty Ltd
v
Director of Public Prosecutions
Brehane Giday Girmay by his litigation guardian Tsege Gebregiorgis Behre
v
Jason Vivian Green
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
1:00 p.m.
For Bail Application
Daniel Delphine
(Part-heard)
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
MJD
4:15 p.m.
For Sentence
Joshua Edward Peter Darling
For Mention
MJD Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9:15 a.m. via MS Teams
For Mention
Faye Lillian Hall and anor v Barry Graham Spurway-Smith and anor
For Directions Hearing
Jeanette Lorraine Davis v Frances Pauline Stilgoe
For Mention
Howard Robert Williams (as executor of the Estate of Joyce Evans) v Elwin Harrison and anor
For Mention
Dale John Stacey v Narelle Ann Stacey
For Directions Hearing
Christopher Ian Benson and ors v Doloraine Pty Ltd and anor
For Directions Hearing
Peter Nathan Bennett v Evans Accounting & Taxation Pty Ltd
9:30 a.m. via MS Teams
For Possession
Westpac Banking Corporation v Timothy John Young and anor
10:00 a.m.
For Referral to Mediation
Karl Michael Robertson v Timothy Justin Andrews
11:30 a.m.
For Hearing
Shane Geoffrey Wilson and anor v Inez Malita Bryan and ors
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Natalie Maher
(Part heard)
2:00 p.m.
For Application via video-link to Conference Room, Alexander Street, Burnie
JSS
4:15 p.m.
For Admission to the Legal Profession
Jason Richard Parker
BURNIE
Conference Room, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:00 p.m.
For Application via video-link from Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
JSS
Details
- Case
- [2021] TASSCCourtlist 374
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Chief Justice Blow presided over a motion to review filed by Troy Anthony Colin Clark against the State of Tasmania. The applicant sought to challenge the decision of the court in relation to a matter concerning alleged unlawful detention. The legal issues before the court encompassed the scope of review available to the applicant and the correctness of the original decision made by the court.
The court considered the principles of judicial review, focusing on the legality, rationality, and procedural fairness of the original decision. It examined whether the decision-maker had acted within their legal authority, whether the decision was reasonable, and whether there had been any procedural errors. The court also evaluated the evidence and arguments presented by both parties to determine the validity of the applicant's claims. After thorough deliberation, the court found that the original decision was lawful and correctly made, and thus dismissed the motion to review.
Consequently, the court upheld the decision that had been challenged by the applicant, affirming the actions of the State of Tasmania as lawful and procedurally sound. No further orders were made by the court beyond dismissing the motion to review.
The court considered the principles of judicial review, focusing on the legality, rationality, and procedural fairness of the original decision. It examined whether the decision-maker had acted within their legal authority, whether the decision was reasonable, and whether there had been any procedural errors. The court also evaluated the evidence and arguments presented by both parties to determine the validity of the applicant's claims. After thorough deliberation, the court found that the original decision was lawful and correctly made, and thus dismissed the motion to review.
Consequently, the court upheld the decision that had been challenged by the applicant, affirming the actions of the State of Tasmania as lawful and procedurally sound. No further orders were made by the court beyond dismissing the motion to review.
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.