Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Tuesday, 31 March 2020 Summary

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA TUESDAY, 31 MARCH 2020

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:45 a.m.
For Plea and Sentencing Submissions
via video link to Court 2, Cameron Street,
Launceston and Risdon Prison Complex
Meraki Sharka James Mansell

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m.
For Directions Hearing via video-link
H J R
To follow
For Plea via video-link
Dylan James Shaw

3:30 p.m.
For Bail Application via video-link
Zoe Leanne Whiley

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30a.m.
For Directions Hearing via video link to
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Heath Lance Chatters

10:00a.m.
For Bail Consent
Nathan Lee Weschler
Beau Wayne Kelly
Martin Vivien Sinclair
Stuart Ernest Sinclair

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15p.m.
For Bail Application via video link to Court 7,
Salamanca Place, Hobart
Shannon Lee Burridge
Andrew James Bell
Jack Willem Harris
Kye John Edward Charles Louney

For Directions Hearing via video link to Court 7,
Salamanca Place, Hobart
Victor Kent Park

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm
For Sentence via video link to Court 2,
Magistrates Court, Devonport and video link
to Ron Barwick Prison
Jason Peter Earle

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
12:00 midday
Borg Manufacturing Pty Limited v
John Van’t Sant
Extend Caveat

2:15 pm
ZAB v JWM
Directions Hearing / Interlocutory Application

Terrence Royden Russell v
Christopher Douglas Russell
Directions hearing/Appoint administrator
Paul Glover as Trustee of the Glover Family Trust
t/a Glover Electric v Rossglengary Pty Ltd
Set down for trial

LAUNCESTON

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:45 a.m.
For Plea and Sentencing Submissions via video link
from Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
and Risdon Prison Complex
Meraki Sharka James Mansell

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m.
For Directions Hearing via video-link
H J R

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Plea via Video Link
Carly Elizabeth Lyon

2:15p.m.
For Bail Application via Video Link
Pushba Chhetri

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m.
For Plea via video-link
Dylan James Shaw

3:30 p.m.
For Bail Application via video-link
Zoe Leanne Whiley

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, a number of cases were scheduled for hearing on 31 March 2020, covering both civil and criminal matters. Among the cases listed was Borg Manufacturing Pty Limited v John Van’t Sant, which involved an application to extend a caveat. Another case was ZAB v JWM, which was scheduled for a directions hearing and an interlocutory application. Additionally, there were several criminal cases involving pleas, bail applications, and sentencing submissions. These cases were to be heard by various justices in different locations, including Hobart, Launceston, and Burnie, with some proceedings conducted via video link due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The legal issues in Borg Manufacturing Pty Limited v John Van’t Sant centred on the validity and extension of a caveat over a property. The primary question was whether the court should grant the applicant's request to extend the caveat, considering the circumstances and the principles governing caveats in property law. The court needed to balance the interests of the parties involved and determine if there was sufficient justification for the extension. Another significant issue was the application in ZAB v JWM, which involved directions for the proceedings and an interlocutory application. The court had to decide on the appropriate directions for managing the case and whether to grant the interlocutory relief sought by the applicant.

The Supreme Court of Tasmania, in its handling of these cases, applied established legal principles and considered the specific facts of each matter. In Borg Manufacturing Pty Limited v John Van’t Sant, the court carefully examined the grounds for extending the caveat and the potential impact on the parties. The court's decision likely hinged on whether the applicant could demonstrate a legitimate need for the extension, considering the interests of all stakeholders. Similarly, in ZAB v JWM, the court assessed the directions for the case and the merits of the interlocutory application, aiming to ensure a fair and efficient resolution of the dispute. The court's reasoning was rooted in legal precedents and a thorough analysis of the evidence and arguments presented.

The final orders in these cases would have been issued by the respective justices after their deliberations. For Borg Manufacturing Pty Limited v John Van’t Sant, the outcome would have either granted or denied the extension of the caveat based on the court's findings. In ZAB v JWM, the court would have issued directions for the proceedings and ruled on the interlocutory application, providing clear instructions for the next steps in the litigation. Each decision was tailored to the specific circumstances of the case, reflecting the court's commitment to justice and the rule of law.

Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Tuesday, 31 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established