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
Details
- Case
- [2021] TASSCCourtlist 150
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.
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.
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.