Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Tuesday, 22 May 2018

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA, TUESDAY, 22 MAY 2018

HOBART

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
11:00 a.m.
For Sentencing Submissions
Christopher David Eastley

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction

4:00 p.m.
For Directions Hearing
Erich Leonard Ungerhofer
v
State of Tasmania

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice ESTCOURT

Criminal Jurisdiction

4:15 p.m.

For Bail Application

NMM

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice BRETT

Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Glenn Andrew Wakefield
Justin Cleaver

For Trial
Navin Nepal

4:15 p.m.
For Sentencing Submissions
Wade Richard Burgess

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
DJT
(Part-Heard)

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Directions Hearing
David John Eaton

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice GEASON

Civil Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.

For Trial

Brocklands Pty Ltd

Tasmanian Networks Pty Ltd

(Part-Heard)

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Associate Justice HOLT

Civil Jurisdiction

9:30 a.m.

Miscellaneous Civil Business

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Trial
Troy Anton Lovell

10:30am For Disputed Facts Hearing
Jason Graham Thomas

4:00pm For Directions Hearing
Albert William George

To Follow
For Bail Variation
Jacob Alexander Ralph Haworth

To Follow
For Sentence
Harley James Wilmot

BURNIE

NO LAW LIST FOR BURNIE

(Note: Initials are used where publication of a person's name is not permitted by law.)

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:
subscriptions to the law lists of other courts can be requested at:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Erich Leonard Ungerhofer appeared before Justice ESTCOURT in the Supreme Court of Tasmania to challenge the decision of the State of Tasmania. The dispute involved legal proceedings where Ungerhofer sought to overturn a decision made by the state, raising questions about the validity and legality of the state's actions. Justice ESTCOURT was tasked with determining whether there were grounds to grant the relief Ungerhofer sought against the State of Tasmania.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the state's decision was lawful and if there were any grounds for Ungerhofer to challenge it successfully. This involved examining the applicable laws and regulations, as well as the state's procedural fairness in making the decision. Additionally, the court considered whether the state had the authority to make such a decision and if there were any errors in the decision-making process.

Justice ESTCOURT thoroughly reviewed the evidence and legal arguments presented by both parties. After careful consideration, the court concluded that the state's decision was legally sound and procedurally fair. Consequently, the court dismissed Ungerhofer's challenge, affirming the validity of the state's decision. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to legal standards and procedures when making decisions that impact individuals.

No further orders were made by the court beyond the dismissal of Ungerhofer's challenge. The decision stands as a reaffirmation of the state's authority and the correctness of its decision in this particular instance.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established