Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Wednesday 21 October 2020

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA WEDNESDAY 21 OCTOBER 2020

HOBART

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the FULL COURT OF APPEAL
Civil Jurisdiction
9:15am
For Decision
Tasmania Health Service v JW

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
12:45 p.m
For Directions Hearing via video-link to Court 1, Burnie
Damian Leslie Harper

PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15p.m
For Directions Hearing via Video Link to Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston and PWR, Alexander Street, Burnie
Bradley Lawrence Mykael Gee

For Bail Application via Video Link to Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Christopher Leigh Brown

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Mention
Aaron Dean Eaves
Kai Kimmo Juvakka

For Trial
Joshua Blair Read
(Part-heard)

2:00pm
For Sentence
Benjamin John Howlett

4:15pm
For Directions Hearing
Matthew Joseph Piggott
Johnny David Jones
Matthew Steven McCulloch

For Bail Consent
Jemma Rumley-Cantrell

For Bail Application
Rachelle Maree O’Brien

For Bail Application via video link to Risdon Prison Complex
James Russon

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Trial
Justin Richard Maynard

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT

10:00 am
Linda Catherine Johnston v The Lost Dogs’ Home (ACN 0047 89726) and anor
Hearing – Originating Application

11:00 am
Adrian Lacroix v Peter Dennis Auksorius and ors
Directions Hearing

12 noon
Judith Rose BARBER v Joy Elizabeth BARBER as executrix of the Estate of the late Rex Ernest Barber
Costs

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Mention
Michael Peter Lee James Blake

For Trial
AWB

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15p.m
For Directions Hearing via Video Link to PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart and PWR, Alexander Street, Burnie
Bradley Lawrence Mykael Gee

Directions Hearing
Michael John Salter

For Bail Application via Video Link to PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Christopher Leigh Brown

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Civil Jurisdiction
4:15p.m.
For Directions Hearing
Fingal Pastoral Pty Ltd
v
Page Seager Lawyers

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m
For Directions Hearing
Bradley Frank Richards

For Trial
P G T

12:45 p.m
For Directions Hearing via video-link to Court 7, Hobart
Damian Leslie Harper

PWR, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15p.m
For Directions Hearing via Video Link to Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston and PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Bradley Lawrence Mykael Gee

The case before the Supreme Court of Tasmania involves a dispute between Tasmania Health Service and JW. The nature of the dispute is not explicitly stated in the document but is likely related to a health service matter. The case was heard before Justice Wood in Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart. The legal issues the court was required to decide were not explicitly stated in the document, but it is likely that the court had to determine whether the defendant was liable for the costs incurred by the plaintiff. The court's reasoning and outcome were not explicitly stated in the document, but it is likely that the court considered the evidence presented by both parties and made a decision based on the merits of the case. The final orders were not explicitly stated in the document, but it is likely that the court made an order in favour of one party or the other.

If the court had to decide on the legal issues related to the dispute, it is likely that the court considered the terms of any agreement between the parties, the nature of the services provided, and the reasonableness of the costs claimed. The court may have also considered whether the defendant had breached any contractual obligations or acted negligently in providing the services. The court's decision would have been based on a careful analysis of the evidence presented by both parties and the applicable law. The final orders would have reflected the court's determination of the liability of the parties and the amount of costs, if any, that the defendant was required to pay to the plaintiff.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established