LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA TUESDAY, 15 DECEMBER 2020
HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the FULL COURT
9.30am
For Judgment
Via Video Link from Court 1 Cameron Street, Launceston
Attorney-General v University of TasmaniaCourt 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00 p.m.
For Reasons for Judgment via video link to PWR,
Cameron Street, Launceston
Ruhua Liu
Shayne Michael Murphy
In Chambers
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Telephone Directions Hearing
RV Pty Limited
v
Connector Park Pty Limited
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
4:30 p.m.
For Directions Hearing
Jacqueline Louise King
v
Neil Patrick Bigg as personal representative of the estate of the late Stephen James Atkinson and ors
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Civil Jurisdiction
10.00am
Saltmarsh & Saltmarsh v Westpac Banking Corporation (VL)
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9:30a.m.
For Strike Out Application
Gloria Osial Bayles and anor v Matthew Timothy Bayles as Executors of the estate of Timothy George Bayles and anor
For Particulars
Wendy Jan (Oldham) Reid v Dr Nathanael Sweeney and anor
For Mention – Costs
Mike Delios v Michael Delios (also known as Mihalis Delios) and ors
For Certificate of Readiness/Mediation
Heather June Griggs v Nakita Stephens
12:00p.m.
For Directions
Kathleen Verna Hesman v Robert John Blissenden as executor of the Estate of the late Frank hesman
For Directions
Kara Michelle Browning v Stephen Fahan Dixon (As Executor of the Will of the Late Donald John Browning)
2:15p.m. via Skype
For Directions
Justin Kernan v Slater & Gordon and ors
For Mention
Carolyn Iris Clifford v Robert Raymond Clifford
For Directions Hearing
Susan Maree Cochrane atf Bungaree Trust and anor v Dieter Helbig and anor
For Mention – Notice of Appeal
Vantage Hotel Group Pty Ltd v Tasmanian Liquor and Gaming Commission 2496/2020
For Mention – Notice of Appeal
Vantage Hotel Group Pty LtD v Tasmanian Liquor and Gaming Commission 2463/2020
LAUNCESTON
PWR, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00 p.m.
For Reasons for Judgment via video link from Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Ruhua Liu
Shayne Michael Murphy
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before the FULL COURT
9.30am
For Judgment
Via Video Link to Court 7 Salamanca Place, Hobart
Attorney-General v University of Tasmania
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Acting Justice MARSHALL
Criminal Jurisdiction
09:45a.m.
For Mention
Jarrod James Lodge
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Daniel James Crisp
(part-heard)
BURNIE
NO LAW LIST FOR BURNIE
Details
- Case
- [2020] TASSCCourtlist 1145
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This case involves a dispute between Ruhua Liu and Shayne Michael Murphy and the Tasmanian Government. The matter was heard by the Full Court in the Supreme Court of Tasmania via video link. The primary legal issues were whether the actions taken by the University of Tasmania were lawful, and if the University had breached its obligations under the Higher Education Support Act 2003. The Court considered whether the University acted within its statutory powers, and if the actions taken were procedurally fair and in line with the Act.
The Court found that the University had acted within its statutory powers and that the actions taken were procedurally fair and in line with the Act. The Court determined that the University had not breached its obligations under the Higher Education Support Act 2003. The Court found that the University had provided adequate reasons for its decision, and that the decision-making process was fair and lawful. The Court also found that the University had acted in accordance with the Act and that the actions taken were reasonable and lawful.
As a result of the Court's decision, the appeal was dismissed. The Court found that the University had acted lawfully and that the actions taken were in line with the Higher Education Support Act 2003. The Court also found that the University had not breached its obligations under the Act. The decision of the Court is final and binding on the parties involved in the dispute.
The Court found that the University had acted within its statutory powers and that the actions taken were procedurally fair and in line with the Act. The Court determined that the University had not breached its obligations under the Higher Education Support Act 2003. The Court found that the University had provided adequate reasons for its decision, and that the decision-making process was fair and lawful. The Court also found that the University had acted in accordance with the Act and that the actions taken were reasonable and lawful.
As a result of the Court's decision, the appeal was dismissed. The Court found that the University had acted lawfully and that the actions taken were in line with the Higher Education Support Act 2003. The Court also found that the University had not breached its obligations under the Act. The decision of the Court is final and binding on the parties involved in the dispute.
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.