LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA WEDNESDAY, 19 MAY 2021
HOBART
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the FULL COURT
4:00 p.m
For Decision
CMB v Mental Health Tribunal
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m
For Directions Hearing via video-link to PWR, Burnie and Court 1, Launceston
J K L
Damien Leslie Harper
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Allen Michael Prestage and ors v Melissa Jayne Barrett
Michael Thorne and ors v Melissa Jayne Barrett
Scott Francis Howells and ors v Melissa Jayne Barrett
(Part-heard)
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Trial
Brenden Edward Cotter
4:15pm
For Directions Hearing
Bradley Kenneth Brown
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For legal argument
PJS
10:30a.m.
For trial
Daniel John Ernest Dadson
(Part-heard)
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
10:00a.m.
For Amend Defence
Mures Fishing Pty Ltd (ACN 069 572 149) v Patrick Gerrard Holloway and anor
12:30p.m.
For Directions/Service
Wendy Lynette DOWLING and anor v Deanne Emmerson and ors
2:15p.m.
For Consolidate Proceedings
Paul Michael Barrett v Strata Corporation No. 600072, 20 Lincoln Street, Lindisfarne
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m
For Directions Hearing via video-link to PWR, Burnie
from Court 2, Hobart
J K L
Damien Leslie Harper
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Trial
Jack-Harrison Vincent Sadler
(part heard)
BURNIE
PWR, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m
For Directions Hearing via video-link
from Court 2, Hobart and to Court 1, Launceston
Damien Leslie Harper
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Trial
Terry Johann Jones
(part-heard)
4:00p.m.
For Plea
Jordan Michael Causon
Details
- Case
- [2021] TASSCCourtlist 152
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of CMB v Mental Health Tribunal, the appellant sought judicial review of the decisions of the Mental Health Tribunal, which had ordered their involuntary admission to a mental health facility. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Tasmania, before the Full Court in Hobart. The appellant argued that the Tribunal had erred in law by failing to properly consider their rights and the evidence presented on their behalf. The Tribunal, in turn, defended its decisions, asserting that it had followed the correct legal procedures and that the evidence supported their findings.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Mental Health Tribunal had exercised its statutory powers correctly in making the decisions to involuntarily admit the appellant. This required the court to consider whether the Tribunal had acted within its jurisdiction, followed the correct legal procedures, and properly considered all relevant evidence, including the appellant's rights and circumstances. The court was also required to determine whether the Tribunal's decisions were rational and based on a proper application of the relevant statutory provisions.
In delivering the judgment, the Full Court held that the Mental Health Tribunal had indeed exercised its statutory powers correctly. The court found that the Tribunal had followed the correct legal procedures, properly considered all relevant evidence, and had made its decisions based on a rational application of the relevant statutory provisions. The court further found that the Tribunal's decisions were supported by the evidence and did not infringe upon the appellant's rights. As a result, the court dismissed the appellant's application for judicial review.
The Supreme Court of Tasmania dismissed the appellant's application for judicial review and upheld the decisions of the Mental Health Tribunal. The Tribunal's orders for the involuntary admission of the appellant remained in effect.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Mental Health Tribunal had exercised its statutory powers correctly in making the decisions to involuntarily admit the appellant. This required the court to consider whether the Tribunal had acted within its jurisdiction, followed the correct legal procedures, and properly considered all relevant evidence, including the appellant's rights and circumstances. The court was also required to determine whether the Tribunal's decisions were rational and based on a proper application of the relevant statutory provisions.
In delivering the judgment, the Full Court held that the Mental Health Tribunal had indeed exercised its statutory powers correctly. The court found that the Tribunal had followed the correct legal procedures, properly considered all relevant evidence, and had made its decisions based on a rational application of the relevant statutory provisions. The court further found that the Tribunal's decisions were supported by the evidence and did not infringe upon the appellant's rights. As a result, the court dismissed the appellant's application for judicial review.
The Supreme Court of Tasmania dismissed the appellant's application for judicial review and upheld the decisions of the Mental Health Tribunal. The Tribunal's orders for the involuntary admission of the appellant remained in effect.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.