Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Tuesday, 12 February 2019

Case [2019] TASSCCourtlist 25


LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA TUESDAY, 12 FEBRUARY 2019

HOBART

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction

4:15 p.m.

For Preliminary Proceedings Application
via video link to Court 1, Alexander Place, Burnie
Justin Roy John Roughley

Civil Jurisdiction

4:15 p.m.

For Judgment
State of Tasmania
v
Elaine Mary Herlihy

Glenorchy City Council
v
Nastassija Wiertek

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:15 a.m.
For Bail Application 
Mark Thomas Wordsworth

10:00 a.m.
For Mention 
Gary Scott Sullivan

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

1:00 p.m.
For Directions Hearing 
KLL           

4:00 p.m.
For Application to Review a Detention Order    
NMM  

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT

Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Thomas Oliver Melick
(Part-Heard)

4:15 p.m.
For Sentence
Brook Jean Targett
Wayne Andrew Fenton

For Directions Hearing
KJH  
Angus Robert Carmelo Souter

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00 p.m.
For Sentence
Emily Rae Slevin

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
Miscellaneous Civil Business

LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Trial (Part Heard)
Andrew Rex Gleeson

10:00am For Mention
Chirack Mwanza Kadima

To Follow
For Trial
CJR    

4:15pm For Sentence
Liam John Wood

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Acting Justice MARTIN
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Trial (Part Heard)
Toby John Della Valle
Shea Alex Gibbling

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction

4:15 p.m.

For Preliminary Proceedings Application
via video link from Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Justin Roy John Roughley

(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:

Details
AGLC
Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Tuesday, 12 February 2019 [2019] TASSCCourtlist 25
Case
[2019] TASSCCourtlist 25
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The State of Tasmania and Elaine Mary Herlihy appeared before Justice Wood in the Supreme Court of Tasmania, where the dispute revolved around matters pertaining to civil jurisdiction. The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate legal framework and jurisdiction to apply in the context of the dispute between the State of Tasmania and Herlihy. This involved an examination of the statutory provisions and case law governing civil jurisdiction within the Supreme Court.

The court undertook a detailed analysis of the relevant statutes, focusing on the Supreme Court Act and other pertinent legislation, to ascertain the correct jurisdictional scope. Justice Wood considered the nature of the claims made by Herlihy and the State's response, assessing whether the matters at hand fell strictly within the civil jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or if they should be addressed in another forum. The reasoning included a thorough review of jurisdictional boundaries and the applicability of specific legal principles to the facts of the case.

In delivering the judgment, Justice Wood concluded that the Supreme Court had the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine the claims presented. The court's decision was based on a comprehensive evaluation of statutory authority and judicial precedents. The final orders included the court's determination to proceed with the case in its civil jurisdiction, setting the stage for further proceedings as outlined in the judgment.

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.