Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Tuesday, 22 September 2020

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA TUESDAY, 22 SEPTEMBER 2020

HOBART

In Chambers
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
4:30 p.m.
For Telephone Directions Hearing
Steven Tsiakis
v
Dean Richards

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:30 a.m
For Voir DireM T S
(Part-heard)
4:00 p.m
For Directions Hearing
L H C

4:15 p.m
For Directions Hearing via video-link
Susan Blyth Neill-Fraser v State of Tasmania

4:30 p.m
For Bail Application
Brenden Edward Cotter
(Part-heard)

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Sentencing Submissions
Justin Paul Moore

10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Jarod Lee Kringle

4:00 p.m.
For Bail Consent
Shaun Brodie Parremore

Protected Witness Room, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15p.m.
For Sentencing Submissions via Video
Link from Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Michael Samuel Charlesworth

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm
For Directions Hearing via video link to Risdon Prison Complex
Jason Clifford Gordon

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:45 a.m.
For Bail Variation via video link to
Supreme Court, Alexander Street, Burnie
Nathan Baden Roy Whelan

10:00 a.m.
For Directions Hearing
Justin Richard Maynard

For Plea
Luke Arthur Waddell-Smith

Not Before 11:30 a.m.
For Bail Application
Christina Vernessa Watson

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9:30a.m.
For Particulars
Riley Mark Williams v Luke Johann Giesen

11:00a.m.
For R414 Directions Hearing
Amelia Anne Lovell v Michael Peter Verschuur and ors 2020/1762

For R414 Directions Hearing
Amelia Anne Lovell v Michael Peter Verschuur and ors 2020/1240

For R414 Directions Hearing
Phillip Mallinson v Emilio Mignanelli and anor

For Mention – Originating Application
Rodney Lockett v Motor Accidents Insurance Board

12:00p.m.
For Directions/Originating Application
Robert Williams Martin v Terrence Martin as Executors of the Estate of Charles Terrence Martin and ors

2:15p.m.
For Direction Hearing
Elena Kourdukova King v Peter Royston Worrall and ors

For Strike out Defence and Counterclaim/Set Down for Trial
Paul Glover as Trustee of the Glover Family Trust t/a Glover Electric v Rossglengary Pty Ltd

For Directions – List of Documents
Firstmac Fiduciary Services Pty Ltd v John Dourias as Trustee of the 60 Barossa Family Trust – 1^st Defendant – Opteon (Tasmania) Pty Ltd – 1^st Third Party – John Dourias – 2^nd Defendant

3:00p.m.
For Directions Hearing via Skype
Christopher Ian Benson and ors v Doloraine Pty Ltd

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Final Notice
Cassandra Margaret Lowery

For Backstop Trial
Christopher Ernest Denman

For Trial
Wayne Keith Herlihy

4:15p.m.
For Sentencing Submissions via Video Link
to Protected Witness Room, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Michael Samuel Charlesworth
BURNIE

PWR, Alexander Street, BurnieBefore Justice GEASONCriminal Jurisdiction9:45 a.m.
For Bail Variation via video link from
Supreme Court, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Steven Tsiakis brought a case against Dean Richards before Justice Wood of the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The dispute appears to be a civil matter, although the specific nature of the claim is not mentioned in the document. The hearing was scheduled for a telephone directions hearing at 4:30 p.m. The court was required to determine procedural issues related to the case, such as setting a course for the upcoming directions and potentially resolving any preliminary matters.

The court, in its reasoning, focused on managing the procedural aspects of the case. Justice Wood likely considered the nature of the claims and any preliminary issues that needed to be addressed before proceeding to a full hearing. The outcome of the directions hearing would have established a clear path forward for the case, potentially setting dates for further hearings or requiring additional information from the parties.

The final orders of the court, while not explicitly detailed in the document, would have included directives for the next steps in the litigation process. This could involve scheduling further hearings, requiring additional documentation, or addressing any procedural disputes that arose during the directions hearing. The precise details of the court's orders would have been communicated to the parties involved, ensuring that both sides were aware of the next steps and any requirements they needed to fulfill.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established