Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Tuesday, 30 January 2018 Summary

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA, TUESDAY, 30 JANUARY 2018

HOBART

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
In Court as in Chambers
4:00 p.m.
For Directions Hearing
Zahid Akram Khan Sher
v
Daryl John Smart and Anor

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice GEASON

Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.

For Bail Application

Shona Rosewarne

11:00 a.m.

For Directions Hearing

Christopher Adam Leaman

State of Tasmania

Garry Maxwell Billinghurst

State of Tasmania

For Bail Application

Justin Cleaver

Michael Hopkinson

2:15 p.m.

For Bail Application via video link to
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Jake Herlihy

For Mention via video link to Court 1,
Cameron Street, Launceston
Narcilla Barrett

For Bail Application

Kyam Keith Broadby

John Timbs

Zane Michael Jamieson

Braydon Hopkinson

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction

2:15 p.m.

For bail application via Video-Link to

Court 7, Salamanca Place. Hobart

Jake Herlihy

For mention via Video-Link to

Court 7, Salamanca Place. Hobart

Narcilla Barrett

BURNIE

NO LAW LIST

(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

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, a civil case was heard in Hobart before Chief Justice Blow. The case involved Zahid Akram Khan Sher as the plaintiff against Daryl John Smart and another defendant. The nature of the dispute was not specified in the extract, but it was scheduled for a directions hearing. The hearing was part of the civil jurisdiction and took place in Court 1 at Salamanca Place in Hobart.

The legal issues before the court in this case were likely related to the procedural steps that the parties should follow in progressing the case, including any necessary disclosures, evidence exchanges, and potential timelines for trial. The court would have considered the nature of the claims, the evidence available, and the applicable legal standards to determine how the case should proceed.

The court's reasoning and outcome were not detailed in the extract, but it was scheduled for a directions hearing, indicating that the court was expected to provide guidance on the procedural aspects of the case. The outcome would have included directives on the next steps for both parties, such as setting deadlines for filing additional documents or scheduling further court appearances.

No final orders were stated in the extract. However, the court's directions would have laid the groundwork for the next stages of the litigation process, ensuring that both parties are aware of their obligations and the timeline for resolving the dispute.

Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Tuesday, 30 January 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established