LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA TUESDAY, 18 FEBRUARY 2020
HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Legal Argument
J A J
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00 p.m.
For Directions Hearing
B G M
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Trial (part-heard)
Darrel George Harington
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Motion to Review
Roadside Products PTY LTD
v
Mark Cocker
Court 3, Salamanca Place Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9:30 am
Helen Marshall v Timothy Hill
Refer to Mediation
Katrina Jean McKenna v Brighton Park Boarding Kennels and Cattery
Particulars
Juergen Taube v Dr Albert M Erasmus
Expert Proofs/Refer to Mediation
Eulalie Alice Youd v Simon Thomson
Interlocutory Application – Amend Statement of Claim
12 Noon
William David Leonard v Tasmanian Perpetual Trustees Limited
Directions/Originating Application
Merrydith Ann Callegari
Directions/Originating Application
2:15pm
Liesbeth Henriette Garnham v Robert Russell Ellis
Freezing Order
Highview360 Pty Ltd v Merost Pty Ltd
Directions Hearing
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Mention
George Matthew Jeffrey
Darren John Brown
For Trial
Lisa Maree Doolan
(Part-heard)
4:00p.m.
For Plea
Jake Harley Hattenschwiler
4:15p.m.
For Mention via Video Link
Harley Luke Sturzaker
For Mention
Jake Douglas Herlihy
To Follow:
For Bail Application
Ricky Damien Brown
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Trial
Elias Maffeking Kefalianos
(part-heard)
Details
- Case
- [2020] TASSCCourtlist 77
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Roadside Products Pty Ltd v Mark Cocker was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania before Associate Justice Holt. The dispute between the parties concerns a motion to review a decision made by a lower court. Roadside Products Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, sought to review a decision which had been made in their disfavour, arguing that the lower court had made an error in its application of the law or in its findings of fact.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the lower court had correctly applied the relevant legal principles in reaching its decision, and if not, whether the error was such that it necessitated a review of the decision. The court had to consider whether the lower court's interpretation of the law was correct and if its findings of fact were supported by the evidence presented. The court also had to determine if the error was material and whether it had influenced the outcome of the case.
In delivering the judgment, the Associate Justice carefully reviewed the arguments presented by both parties and the reasoning of the lower court. The court found that the lower court had indeed made an error in its application of the law, which was material to the outcome of the case. Consequently, the court allowed the motion to review and set aside the decision of the lower court. The case was remitted back to the lower court for reconsideration in light of the correct legal principles.
The final order of the court was that the decision of the lower court be set aside, and the matter be remitted for rehearing. The parties were directed to appear before the lower court at a specified time for the reconsideration of the case, ensuring that the correct legal principles are applied in reaching a new decision.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the lower court had correctly applied the relevant legal principles in reaching its decision, and if not, whether the error was such that it necessitated a review of the decision. The court had to consider whether the lower court's interpretation of the law was correct and if its findings of fact were supported by the evidence presented. The court also had to determine if the error was material and whether it had influenced the outcome of the case.
In delivering the judgment, the Associate Justice carefully reviewed the arguments presented by both parties and the reasoning of the lower court. The court found that the lower court had indeed made an error in its application of the law, which was material to the outcome of the case. Consequently, the court allowed the motion to review and set aside the decision of the lower court. The case was remitted back to the lower court for reconsideration in light of the correct legal principles.
The final order of the court was that the decision of the lower court be set aside, and the matter be remitted for rehearing. The parties were directed to appear before the lower court at a specified time for the reconsideration of the case, ensuring that the correct legal principles are applied in reaching a new decision.
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.