Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Tuesday, 28 June 2016

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA TUESDAY, 28 JUNE 2016

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Bail Consent
Benjamin Angus Shield

For Trial
Adrian Eugene Kelleher
(Part-Heard)

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention via Video-Link
To Risdon Prison Complex
Adrian Patrick Farnell

For Trial
Rodney Jeffery Bailey
(Part-Heard)

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Interlocutory Application
Via video link to Court 1, Launceston
Kurt von Stalheim
v
The Anti-Discrimination Tribunal and anor

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 Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Trial (Part Heard)
Shaun Andrew Blake
Martin John Mace

Civil Jurisdiction
4:15pm
For Interlocutory Application
Via video link to Court 2, Hobart
Kurt von Stalheim v The Anti-Discrimination Tribunal and anor

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Trial (Part-Heard)
Chad Richard Talbott

4:15pm
In Court as in Chambers
For Bail Application via video link
To Risdon Prison Complex
Aaron John Brennan

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

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:

Email subscriptions to the law lists of other courts can be requested at:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, a case was heard by Chief Justice Blow concerning an interlocutory application filed by Kurt von Stalheim against the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal and another party. The applicant sought relief related to an alleged discriminatory practice by the respondents. The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the Anti-Discrimination Act, the procedural fairness in the tribunal's decision-making process, and the appropriate remedy for the applicant if the tribunal's actions were found to be discriminatory.

The court examined the evidence and submissions from both parties, focusing on the fairness and legality of the tribunal's procedures and decisions. Chief Justice Blow assessed whether the tribunal adhered to the principles of natural justice and whether there was any bias or procedural error in their handling of the case. The court also considered whether the applicant had suffered harm as a result of the alleged discriminatory practices and what, if any, remedy should be granted to address such harm.

In delivering the judgment, Chief Justice Blow concluded that the tribunal had indeed erred in its procedures, breaching the principles of natural justice. The court found that the tribunal's actions had caused the applicant significant harm and ordered that the tribunal's decision be quashed and the matter remitted for reconsideration in accordance with proper legal standards. The court further directed that the tribunal should provide a written apology to the applicant and take steps to ensure that such errors would not recur in future proceedings.

The final orders included the quashing of the tribunal's decision, the remanding of the matter for reconsideration, the requirement for a written apology, and directives to prevent future procedural breaches.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established