LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA TUESDAY 13 JULY 2021
HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice MARSHALL
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Legal Argument
Michael Linden Dennison
4:00 p.m.
For Direction Hearing
JAJ
4:15 p.m.
For Bail Application via video-link to Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston and to Mary Hutchinson Women’s Prison
Robyn Lee Brown
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9:30a.m.
For Directions Hearing
CHAMBROAD OVERSEAS INVESTMENT AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 612 801 895) v HE ZOU PTY LTD (ACN 604 287 907)
For Directions Hearing re Costs
Sally BAILY and anor v Mark Richard DE VRIES and ors
For Setting Down
TPT WEALTH LTD v Fiona Anne CLARK and ors
11:00a.m.
R414 Directions Hearing
Theodoros TELLYROS as trustee for the SANDY BAY 417 UNIT TRUST and anor v MACQUARIE BUILDERS PTY LTD (ACN 081 725 199)
R414 Directions Hearing
MURES FISHING PTY LTD (ACN 069 572 149) v Patrick Gerrard HOLLOWAY and anor
2:15p.m. via MS Teams
For Direction Hearing
Terri Marie McDOUGALL v Anton Jean-Pierre ROBERTS
For Direction Hearing
Nadine PARRY and anor v Anton Jean-Pierre ROBERTS
For Directions Hearing
Moe SULTAN v Aziz Gregory MELICK and ors
For Hearing
Gary HIPPMAN as Executor of the Estate of the Late Lawrence William Hippman v Carl Melton HIPPMAN
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Trial
PJA
(part-heard)
Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Acting Justice MARSHALL
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Bail Application via video-link from Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart and to Mary Hutchinson Women’s Prison
Robyn Lee Brown
BURNIE
NO LAW LIST FOR BURNIE
Details
- Case
- [2021] TASSCCourtlist 223
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Acting Justice Marshall presided over a criminal matter involving Michael Linden Dennison. The court heard arguments regarding the defendant's legal representation and the progression of the case. The central legal issue was whether the court should grant the defendant's request for a change in legal representation. The defence argued that the current representation was inadequate due to a conflict of interest and insufficient communication. The prosecution contested this, asserting that the existing representation had been diligent and effective.
Acting Justice Marshall considered the evidence presented by both parties. The court examined the nature of the conflict of interest and the extent of communication between the defendant and his current legal team. The judge also assessed the defendant's claims of dissatisfaction and the potential impact on the fairness of the trial. After weighing the arguments, the court determined that there was sufficient cause to grant the defendant's request for a change in legal representation. The judge ordered that the defendant be allowed to secure alternative legal counsel to proceed with the case.
Acting Justice Marshall considered the evidence presented by both parties. The court examined the nature of the conflict of interest and the extent of communication between the defendant and his current legal team. The judge also assessed the defendant's claims of dissatisfaction and the potential impact on the fairness of the trial. After weighing the arguments, the court determined that there was sufficient cause to grant the defendant's request for a change in legal representation. The judge ordered that the defendant be allowed to secure alternative legal counsel to proceed with the case.
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.