Law Lists for The Supreme Court of Tasmania Tuesday, 18 May 2021HOBARTCourt 2, Salamanca Place, HobartBefore Chief Justice BLOWCivil Jurisdiction11:00a.m.For Judgment Kondok Mario-Ring vCriminal Injuries...

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA TUESDAY, 18 MAY 2021

HOBART

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
11:00a.m.
For Judgment
Kondok Mario-Ring
v
Criminal Injuries Compensation Commissioner Piggott

For Hearing
Matthew Hurst
v
Launceston City Council and ors

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15p.m.
For Preliminary Proceedings Application
DJB

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m
For Sentencing Submissions
Cassandra Helene Murray

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)

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Mention
Banjo Manser
Brenden Edward Cotter

4:15pm
For Directions Hearing/Application
Hayden Dean Scott Stone

For Bail Consent
William Mark Hutchinson

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For trial
Daniel John Ernest Dadson
(Part-heard)

2:15p.m.
For application
Jake Mark Pearce

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9:30a.m.
For Directions Hearing
Gary James Hurst v Tasmanian Health Service

11:00a.m.
For R414 Directions Hearing
Tas Investco Pty Ltd (ACN 638 808 858) as trustee for Tasmania Property Trust v Moe Sultan as Executor of the Deceased Estate of Stanley Lewis Fletcher and anor

For 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)

For Direction Directions
Shane Geoffrey Wilson and anor v Inez Malita Bryan and ors

12:00p.m.
For Mention
TPT Wealth Ltd v Fiona Anne Clark and ors

For Mention
Mark Gerard Freeman by his administrator TPT Wealth Ltd v Public Trustee

For Directions Hearing
Stephen Paul Freeman v Public Trustee as Executor of the Will of Margaret Mary Freeman

For Mention
Christina Raphael Francis Jane Rossi-Dyer by her Litigation Guardian Melissa Jane Therese Rossi v Kelly Anne Dyer and ors

For Mention
Krystyna Nowicki v Kelly Anne Dyer as personal legal representative of the Estate of the Late Geoffrey Quintin Dyer (in the will called Geoffrey Quinton Dyer) and ors

For Directions Hearing
Kimberley Geelan and anor v Glenda Elayne Bush

For Directions Hearing
Legal Profession Board Of Tasmania v James Andrew McConvill

For Mention
Macy Mackay (by her litigation guardian Whitney Mackay) v I & K Miranda T/AS Park Life Play Café

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:45am
For Trial
Jack-Harrison Vincent Sadler
(part heard)

4:15pm
For Mention
Colin Harvey Templar

For Application to Vary Bail
Matthew John Upston

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
09:30a.m.
For Trial
Terry Johann Jones
(part-heard)

10:00a.m.
For Bail Consent
Liam Kerry Whitton-Lowe

4:15p.m.
For Sentencing Submissions
Max Elliott Waymouth

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, the case of Kondok Mario-Ring versus the Criminal Injuries Compensation Commissioner Piggott was presented before Chief Justice Blow. The central issue before the court was the eligibility and quantum of compensation payable to the plaintiff for injuries sustained in a criminal act. The plaintiff argued that the compensation provided was inadequate, while the Commissioner contended that the compensation was within the statutory limits and appropriate given the circumstances.

The court considered the statutory framework governing criminal injuries compensation and the relevant case law to determine the appropriate compensation. The Chief Justice weighed the arguments presented by both parties and assessed the evidence provided. The court concluded that the compensation awarded was insufficient to cover the plaintiff's losses and increased the amount payable. The decision was based on the principle that the compensation should reflect the true extent of the plaintiff's injuries and losses.

The final order of the court was that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Commissioner should pay an increased amount of compensation to the plaintiff. This decision ensures that the plaintiff receives adequate compensation for the injuries sustained, reflecting the court's commitment to providing fair and just outcomes in cases of criminal injuries compensation.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established