LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA, TUESDAY, 26 MAY 2020
HOBART
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the FULL COURT
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing via video link to Court 1,
Cameron Street, Launceston
Xuede Shi
v
Acting Sergeant Scott Wilkie
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Civil Jurisdiction
9:15 a.m
For Directions Hearing via telephone
Alan Bradley Jorgensen v Australian Securities and Investment Commission
3:00 p.m
For Directions Hearing via telephone
Michael John Hopkinson v Scott Wilkie
To follow
For Directions Hearing via telephone
Jarrod Kringle v Sgt Melinda Horan and ors
3:30 p.m
For Directions Hearing via telephone
Legal Profession Board of Tasmania v Disciplinary Tribunal
3:45 p.m
For Directions Hearing via telephone
Jacqueline Louise King v Neil Patrick Bigg
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Directions Hearing
Margaret Anne Otto
For Directions Hearing
Benjamin John Howlett
Jacob Leigh Barron
Brayden Richard William Vince
Mark Anthony Lester
Gary Matthews
Anmar Elnami
Luke David King
For Plea via video link to Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Saxon John Horton
11:00a.m.
For Plea
Adam Brian John Hall
11:30a.m.
For Sentence
Shayne Williams Jones
Zack David Devine
Kayne Geoffrey Quinn
For Bail Application
Sean Patrick Mahoney
12:00p.m.
For Bail Application
Kyam Keith Broadby
For Bail Consent
Shyanne Nicole Devine
Tamika Lee Moeakiola
Lionel David Brown
Rahn Marcus Hansson
Wayne Gregory Pattison
Tara Maree Astell
Kynan David Leek
Luis Henry Lachlan McRae
Liam Ross Woolley
Sharon Maree Bailey
Stuart Alexander Ferguson
Ty Ferguson
David Andrew Thomas
Jye Matthew Lowry
Derrick Jonathan Clack
Joel Peter Young
Kevin John Clancy
Todd Athol Jackson
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Linear Capital Pty Ltd v State of Tasmania
Originating application (mention)
Tasmanian Botanics Pty Ltd v Mark Richard De Vries & Ors
Directions hearing
ACN 162 995 204 Pty Ltd v Tasmanian Botanics Pty Ltd & Anor
Directions hearing
Jane Alison Baker v Anthony James Baker & Anor
Directions hearing
Christine Gardiner-Garden v Misho & Associates Pty Ltd & Anor
Directions hearing
11 am
Katherine Mary Baines
Originating application/Directions hearing
12 midday
Terrence Royden Russell v Christopher Douglas Russell & Ors
Appoint administrator
Tasmanet Pty Ltd v Launtel Pty Ltd
Rule 414 directions hearing
Mohamed Hefny v Constable Alicia Barnes
Notice to review (mention)
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before the FULL COURT
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing via video link from Court 8,
Salamanca Place, Hobart
Xuede Shi
v
Acting Sergeant Scott Wilkie
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15p.m.
For Bail Application via Video Link
Michael Rodney Smith
(Part-heard)
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
For Plea via video link from
Court 7, Salamanca Place Hobart
10am
Saxon John Horton
Details
- Case
- [2020] TASSCCourtlist 586
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Supreme Court of Tasmania heard a civil case, Xuede Shi v Acting Sergeant Scott Wilkie, where the plaintiff, Xuede Shi, sued the defendant, Acting Sergeant Scott Wilkie, for alleged defamation. The Full Court presided over the case via video link from Court 8 in Hobart to Court 1 in Launceston. The primary legal issue the court needed to decide was whether the defendant's actions constituted defamation and, if so, whether the plaintiff suffered damages as a result. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the defendant had any defences available to him, such as the truth of the statements made.
In delivering the judgment, the court examined the nature and content of the alleged defamatory statements made by the defendant. It assessed whether these statements were published to a third party, and if they had the potential to harm the plaintiff's reputation. The court also evaluated the defendant's potential defences, including the defence of truth, to determine whether they were applicable in this case. After considering the evidence presented and the arguments from both parties, the court found that the defendant's actions did not constitute defamation. The court ruled in favour of the defendant, finding that the statements made were not defamatory and that the plaintiff had not suffered any damages as a result.
As a result of the court's decision, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed, and the defendant was exonerated from any liability for defamation. The court determined that the statements made by the defendant were not of a defamatory nature, and that no damages were incurred by the plaintiff. Consequently, the defendant was not required to pay any compensation to the plaintiff.
In delivering the judgment, the court examined the nature and content of the alleged defamatory statements made by the defendant. It assessed whether these statements were published to a third party, and if they had the potential to harm the plaintiff's reputation. The court also evaluated the defendant's potential defences, including the defence of truth, to determine whether they were applicable in this case. After considering the evidence presented and the arguments from both parties, the court found that the defendant's actions did not constitute defamation. The court ruled in favour of the defendant, finding that the statements made were not defamatory and that the plaintiff had not suffered any damages as a result.
As a result of the court's decision, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed, and the defendant was exonerated from any liability for defamation. The court determined that the statements made by the defendant were not of a defamatory nature, and that no damages were incurred by the plaintiff. Consequently, the defendant was not required to pay any compensation to the plaintiff.
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.