Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Tuesday, 5 June 2018

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA TUESDAY, 5 JUNE 2018

HOBART

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before the FULL COURT
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Connector Park Pty Ltd
v
RV Pty Ltd
(Part-Heard)

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Trial
David John Eaton

4:15p.m.
For Sentencing Submissions
NHJR

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT

Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Thomas Oliver Melick
(Part-Heard)

4:15 p.m.
For Bail Application
Ayden Michael James Spaulding
James MP Fitzgerald
(Part-Heard)

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Witnesses

For Trial
Timothy Owen Adams

Not Before 11:30 a.m.
For Bail Application via video link to
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Andrew Clint Whiley

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
Miscellaneous Civil Business

LAUNCESTON

Before Acting Justice PORTER
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Not Before 11:30 a.m.
For Bail Application via video link from
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Andrew Clint Whiley

BURNIE

NO LAW LIST FOR BURNIE

(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

The case of Connector Park Pty Ltd v RV Pty Ltd was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania on 5 June 2018. The primary issue in this case was a dispute between two companies, Connector Park Pty Ltd and RV Pty Ltd. The nature of the dispute was not specified in the provided text, but it was a matter that required the attention of the full court. The hearing took place in Court 2 at Salamanca Place, Hobart, before the full court.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide were not explicitly mentioned in the text. However, given that the case was heard by the full court, it can be inferred that the issues were of significant importance or complexity, necessitating the full bench's consideration. The full court's role is to provide a definitive interpretation of the law and ensure consistency in legal decisions across the jurisdiction.

The court's reasoning and outcome are not detailed in the provided excerpt. The full court would have considered the arguments presented by both parties, reviewed relevant case law, and applied legal principles to reach a decision. Given the full court's involvement, the decision would have been carefully reasoned and likely to have significant precedential value. The outcome would have resolved the specific issues between the parties involved in the dispute.

No final orders were mentioned in the text, and further details would be required to understand the specific outcome of the case. However, the decision of the full court would have provided clarity and resolution to the legal issues presented in the Connector Park Pty Ltd v RV Pty Ltd case.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established