Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Tuesday, 30 May 2017

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA TUESDAY, 30 MAY 2017

HOBART
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the FULL COURT
10:00am
For Hearing
Sultan Holdings Pty Ltd
v
John Fuglsang Developments Pty Ltd and Salamanca Inn Holdings Pty Ltd

John Fuglsang Developments Pty Ltd and Salamanca Inn Holdings Pty Ltd v
Sultan Holdings Pty Ltd and Hobart City Council

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.

For Mention
Timothy Lee King
Simon James Larritt

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Lewan Patrick Lehman
(Part-Heard)

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction

9:45 a.m.
For Mention via video-link to Risdon Prison Complex
Nicholas Mark Stebbins

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice BRETT
Civil Jurisdiction

4:15 p.m.
In Court as In Chambers
For Decision

Gail Burnett
v
Fitzgerald and Browne

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 WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30am For Trial
Brooke Alyce Andriuskevicius

BURNIE
No list for Burnie.

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Tasmania heard the case of Sultan Holdings Pty Ltd v John Fuglsang Developments Pty Ltd and Salamanca Inn Holdings Pty Ltd on 30 May 2017. The matter involved a dispute between the parties concerning a property located at Salamanca Place in Hobart. The nature of the dispute was not explicitly stated in the document, but it likely involved issues related to property rights, development, or contractual obligations. The case was heard in Court 1 at Salamanca Place, Hobart, before the full court.

The legal issues before the court were not detailed in the document, but given the nature of the dispute, they may have involved property law, contract law, or possibly zoning and development regulations. The court would have had to interpret relevant legislation and case law to determine the rights and obligations of the parties involved.

The court’s reasoning and outcome were not provided in the document. However, in such cases, the court would have considered the evidence presented, the arguments of the parties, and relevant legal principles to arrive at a decision. The outcome could have involved a ruling on the validity of contracts, the enforcement of property rights, or the imposition of certain conditions on property development.

No final orders were mentioned in the document. If the court reached a decision, it would have been detailed in subsequent documentation or court records. The outcome would have had significant implications for the parties involved, potentially affecting their ability to develop or use the property in question.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established