LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA THURSDAY, 6 MAY 2021
HOBART
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
11:00a.m.
For Judicial Review
Kondok Mario-Ring
v
Criminal Injuries Compensation Commissioner Piggott
PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m
For Directions Hearing via video-link from Court 1, Burnie
Amanda Maree McHugh
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00 p.m
For Directions Hearing via video-link from Court 1, Burnie
Darren James McCall
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Allen Michael Prestage and ors v Melissa Jayne Barrett
Michael Thorne and ors v Melissa Jayne Barrett
Scott Francis Howells and ors v Melissa Jayne Barrett
(Part-heard)
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Trial
KWDF
(Part-heard)
4:15pm
For Mention
Rodney Jeffrey Bailey
Kenneth John Bailey
Brenden Edward Cotter
Matthew Steven McCulloch
For Application to Vary Bail
Cheng Li
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9:15a.m. via MS TEAMS
For Directions Hearing
Ronald Alfred Arthur George Garwood v Graeme Bruce Eyles and ors
For Mention
Fiona Adele Smith and ors v Dwayne Albert Cashman
For Directions Hearing
T.R. & K.R. Shipton Pty Ltd v Hongbing Zhao and anor
For Directions Hearing
Dale John Stacey v Narelle Ann Stacey
For R416 Directions Hearing
Jodie Jones v Bradley Robert Jones
11:00a.m. via MS TEAMS
For Hearing
Shanyin Liu v Lottah Mining Pty Ltd
2:15p.m.
For Hearing
Yvonne June Buckley and ors
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Trial
Jack-Harrison Vincent Sadler
(part heard)
4:00pm
For Directions Hearing
Oliver William Clark
4:15pm
For Directions Hearing
Thomas John Radley
For Bail Application via video link to Risdon Prison Complex, 2
Dylan Maxwell Cocker
Jacob Eric Lonergan
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m
For Directions Hearing via video-link to PWR, Hobart
Amanda Maree McHugh
For Directions Hearing
Jayden Peter Busscher
Justin Robert Dare
For Trial
Jayden Garry Fehlberg
For Backstop Trial
Michael Andrew Smith
4:00 p.m
For Directions Hearing via video-link to Court 1, Hobart
Darren James McCallFor Mention via video-link
Ronald Athol Keating
Details
- Case
- [2021] TASSCCourtlist 134
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Kondok Mario-Ring versus the Criminal Injuries Compensation Commissioner was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania, presided over by Justice Piggott. The dispute involved a claim for compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act. The plaintiff, Kondok Mario-Ring, sought compensation for injuries sustained during an incident that he claimed was caused by the negligence of another party.
The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act, specifically the criteria for eligibility for compensation and the extent of damages that could be awarded. The court had to consider whether the plaintiff's injuries met the statutory requirements for compensation and whether the compensation amount was appropriate and within the legislative limits.
In delivering the judgment, Justice Piggott thoroughly examined the statutory provisions and relevant case law. The court found that the plaintiff's injuries were directly related to the incident and met the criteria for compensation under the Act. However, the court also considered the legislative limits on compensation and determined that the amount claimed by the plaintiff exceeded these limits. Consequently, the court ordered a reduced compensation amount that aligned with the statutory caps.
The final orders of the court included a direction for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Commissioner to pay the plaintiff a reduced amount of compensation, reflecting the statutory limits on awards under the Act. The decision underscores the importance of strict adherence to statutory criteria and limits in compensation claims.
The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act, specifically the criteria for eligibility for compensation and the extent of damages that could be awarded. The court had to consider whether the plaintiff's injuries met the statutory requirements for compensation and whether the compensation amount was appropriate and within the legislative limits.
In delivering the judgment, Justice Piggott thoroughly examined the statutory provisions and relevant case law. The court found that the plaintiff's injuries were directly related to the incident and met the criteria for compensation under the Act. However, the court also considered the legislative limits on compensation and determined that the amount claimed by the plaintiff exceeded these limits. Consequently, the court ordered a reduced compensation amount that aligned with the statutory caps.
The final orders of the court included a direction for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Commissioner to pay the plaintiff a reduced amount of compensation, reflecting the statutory limits on awards under the Act. The decision underscores the importance of strict adherence to statutory criteria and limits in compensation claims.
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.