Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Wednesday, 22 November 2017

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA WEDNESDAY, 22 NOVEMBER 2017

HOBART

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Richard Joseph Bradford
(Part Heard)

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT

Criminal Jurisdiction

9:30 a.m.
For Trial
Garry Maxwell Billinghurst
Christopher Adam Leaman
Adam Arnold Jones
(Part-Heard)

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Phillip William Langford
(Part-Heard)

4:15 p.m.
For Mention
A Witness

For Bail Application
Tara Maree Astell
Kellie Maree Rhodes

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice GEASON

Civil Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.

In Court as in Chambers

Legal Profession Board of Tasmania

A Legal Practitioner

To follow

In Court as in Chambers

A Legal Practitioner

Legal Profession Board of Tasmania

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m. via video link to Burnie
Enter Judgment
Nicole Clarke
v
State of Tasmania & Ors

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Trial (Part Heard)

JDS

4:00pm For Bail Application

John Moloney

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

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Justice Geasons was tasked with resolving a dispute between the Legal Profession Board of Tasmania and a legal practitioner. The case involved a complex interplay of professional conduct and regulatory oversight, focusing on allegations against the practitioner which the Board had brought to court. The legal practitioner contested the allegations, asserting that the Board's actions were unwarranted and that the procedures followed were flawed.

The central legal issues that the court needed to address included the interpretation of relevant statutes and professional guidelines, the admissibility and weight of evidence presented by both parties, and the procedural fairness of the Board's investigation and disciplinary process. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the Board's decision to pursue disciplinary action was justified and whether it was proportionate to the alleged misconduct.

Justice Geasons carefully examined the evidence and arguments from both sides. The court found that the Board had followed proper procedures in its investigation and that the evidence presented sufficiently supported the allegations of professional misconduct. The practitioner's arguments regarding procedural errors and the weight of evidence were considered but ultimately found to be unconvincing. Consequently, the court upheld the Board's decision, affirming that the disciplinary action taken was justified and appropriate.

No specific orders were mentioned in the summary provided, but typically, the court would issue findings and potentially impose sanctions or other remedies as deemed necessary to address the misconduct and to uphold the integrity of the legal profession.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established