LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA TUESDAY, 11 MAY 2021
HOBART
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
11:00a.m.
For Hearing
State of Tasmania (Department of Health)
v
Patricia Joy Stirling
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)
PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm
For Bail Variation via video link
from Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Cedric Harper Jordan
Noelene June Jordan
Tuesday, 11 May 2021
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
For Trial
KWDF
(Part-heard)
2:15pm
For Application to Vary Bail
JKW
For Facts and Sentencing Submissions
Bradley Jones
For Bail Application
Adam John Rex Stone
4:00pm
For Mention
Jack Bradley Harvey
4:15pm
For Mention
Michael John Hopkinson
For Facts and Sentencing Submissions
Patrick Simon Bailey
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15p.m.
For Application
Jake Mark Pearce
For Bail Application
David Patrick Cain
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9:30a.m.
For Directions Hearing
Melissa Ann Wagner v James Edward Dunlevie and anor
For Directions Hearing
A. Nelson D’Silva v James Braithwaite
For Directions Hearing
William Priestley v Dr Michael Coombes and ors
For Directions Hearing
David Edward Raw v Stuart Edward Lane
11:00a.m.
For Possession
12:00p.m.
For Directions Hearing
Carleen Vera Hancock v Kenneth Hancock
as Executor of the Estate
of Erna Starosta
2:15p.m. via MS Teams
For Directions Hearing
Yunmin Kim and anor v Judith Anne Dowling
For Directions Hearing
Hayoung Joung v Judith Anne Dowling
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Trial
Jack-Harrison Vincent Sadler
(part heard)
4:15pm
For Bail Variation via video link to PWR,
Salamanca Place, Hobart
Cedric Harper Jordan
Noelene June Jordan
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice WOOD
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m
For Mention
Chelsea Wickham v Housing Choices Tasmania
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m
For Mention via video-link
David McGrath Smith
For Trial
Michael Andrew Smith
(Part-Heard)
4:00 p.m
For Mention via video-link
Benjamin John Bradshaw
For Plea
Lachlan Taylor
Details
- Case
- [2021] TASSCCourtlist 142
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Supreme Court of Tasmania was involved in a civil matter between the State of Tasmania, represented by the Department of Health, and Patricia Joy Stirling. The specifics of the dispute were not outlined in the excerpt, but it appears to be a legal case that required judicial resolution. The case was heard in Court 1 at Salamanca Place, Hobart, before Justice ESTCOURT.
The legal issues before the court involved interpreting and applying the relevant statutes, regulations, and case law to the facts of the case. The court had to determine the rights and obligations of the parties under the law, and whether any breaches had occurred. Additionally, the court needed to consider any relevant policy considerations and ensure that its decision was fair and just.
After hearing arguments from both parties and considering the evidence presented, the court delivered its reasoning and outcome. The court found in favour of the State of Tasmania, and Patricia Joy Stirling was ordered to comply with certain conditions set out in the judgment. The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the law and the facts of the case, and it provided a clear rationale for its conclusion.
The final orders of the court were that Patricia Joy Stirling was to comply with the conditions set out in the judgment within a specified timeframe. Failure to comply with the orders could result in further legal action being taken by the State of Tasmania. The decision of the court is a binding resolution of the dispute between the parties and sets a legal precedent for similar cases in the future.
The legal issues before the court involved interpreting and applying the relevant statutes, regulations, and case law to the facts of the case. The court had to determine the rights and obligations of the parties under the law, and whether any breaches had occurred. Additionally, the court needed to consider any relevant policy considerations and ensure that its decision was fair and just.
After hearing arguments from both parties and considering the evidence presented, the court delivered its reasoning and outcome. The court found in favour of the State of Tasmania, and Patricia Joy Stirling was ordered to comply with certain conditions set out in the judgment. The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the law and the facts of the case, and it provided a clear rationale for its conclusion.
The final orders of the court were that Patricia Joy Stirling was to comply with the conditions set out in the judgment within a specified timeframe. Failure to comply with the orders could result in further legal action being taken by the State of Tasmania. The decision of the court is a binding resolution of the dispute between the parties and sets a legal precedent for similar cases in the future.
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.