Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Wednesday, 12 October 2016

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA WEDNESDAY, 12 OCTOBER 2016

HOBART
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Jane Ellen Gluschke
(Part Heard)

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Kellan Daniel Stewart Moran

Civil Jurisdiction
4:00 p.m.
For Further Submissions via video-link to Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Constable Phil Merrigan & Ors
v
Joshua Robin Oakley

Court 8, Salamanca Place
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
TGW
(Part-Heard)

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
Refer to Arbitration/Stay action
Russell-Smith Pty Ltd v Vos Construction and Joinery Pty Ltd

4:00p.m.
Directions Hearing by Telephone
Executors of the Will of Irene Vorlicek v Verjbitsky & Anor

4:15p.m.
Directions Hearing by Telephone
DKT Logging Pty Ltd v Arthur J Gallagher & Co

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Mention
Michael John Cowie

To Follow
For Trial (Part-Heard)
Jason Edward Richards

4:15pm For Bail Application
Joseph Edward Auton

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice WOOD
Civil Jurisdiction
4:00pm For Further Submissions via video-link from Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Constable Phil Merrigan & Ors
v
Joshua Robin Oakley

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie before Justice Brett
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00am

For Trial
Graham John Ennis
(Part-heard)

(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

Constable Phil Merrigan and others, as represented by the Commissioner of Police, filed a lawsuit against Joshua Robin Oakley in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that Oakley's conduct constituted an act of domestic violence, and an injunction preventing him from engaging in any form of contact with the plaintiffs or their families. Oakley contested the claims, asserting that his actions were not abusive and that the plaintiffs' allegations were unfounded. The court was tasked with determining whether Oakley's conduct met the legal criteria for domestic violence and whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the requested relief.

The court examined the statutory definitions and criteria for domestic violence, considering the nature and context of Oakley's actions. It evaluated whether his conduct constituted a risk of physical, sexual, psychological, or economic harm to the plaintiffs or their families. The court also considered the evidence presented by both parties, including witness testimonies and any relevant documentation. Justice Estcourt concluded that Oakley's actions did not meet the legal threshold for domestic violence, and therefore, the plaintiffs were not entitled to the relief sought.

As a result, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims. The judge found that while Oakley's conduct may have been inappropriate or concerning, it did not rise to the level of domestic violence as defined by law. Consequently, the court issued a declaration that Oakley's conduct did not constitute domestic violence and denied the plaintiffs' request for an injunction. The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the legal criteria for domestic violence and the evidence presented during the trial.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established