LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA WEDNESDAY, 25 MARCH 2020
HOBART
In Chambers
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Telephone Hearing
Leonard Fernandez
v
Legal Profession Board of Tasmania
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For directions hearing via video link
Duc Van Nguyen
Dylan Roy Bramich
John Julius Boles
2:15p.m.
For Bail Application
Harrison Frederick Reynolds
Jed Curtis Leggett
Timothy Lee Clark
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15p.m.
For Directions hearing via video link to
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Saxon John Horton
For Directions Hearing
Anthony John Stephens
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
10:00 am
In the Matter of Section 30 of the Magistrates Court (Civil Division) Act 1992
and In the Matter of Magistrates Court Action No M/2018/3865: Christian Samuel Murfet and Dannielle Rose Murfet v Beauty Point Property Nominees Pty Ltd (ACN 614 059 399) as Custodian and Bare Trustee for SRTP Dean Pty Ltd as Trustee for the SRTP Dean Retirement Fund
Transfer proceeding to the Supreme Court
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Sentencing Submissions
Emma Louise Wilson
For Plea via Video Link
Curtly James Hodge
11:00a.m.
For Plea via Video Link
Ricky Lee Smith-Towns
2:15p.m.
For Directions Hearing via Telephone
Jarom James Triffitt
Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15p.m.
For Directions Hearing and Bail Application
via Video Link
Luke Anthony Shaw
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
For Directions Hearing via video link from
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Saxon John Horton
Details
- Case
- [2020] TASSCCourtlist 116
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Leonard Fernandez filed a legal action against the Legal Profession Board of Tasmania in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The nature of the dispute revolves around issues pertinent to legal professional conduct and regulatory oversight. The case was presided over by Chief Justice Blow in the Civil Jurisdiction. The central legal issues that the court needed to address involved the interpretation and application of the legal professional conduct rules, the extent of the Board's regulatory powers, and whether the Board's actions were justified under the circumstances presented.
The court meticulously examined the arguments presented by both parties, focusing on the specific provisions of the legal professional conduct framework that were allegedly breached. It evaluated the procedural fairness of the Board's actions and the evidence provided to substantiate the claims against Fernandez. Justice Blow considered the principles of natural justice and the importance of maintaining public confidence in the legal profession. Ultimately, the court found that the Board's actions were procedurally sound and justified, upholding the Board's decision and dismissing Fernandez's claims. The reasoning hinged on a detailed analysis of the evidence and the applicable legal standards, leading to a clear and reasoned decision in favour of the Legal Profession Board of Tasmania.
The court meticulously examined the arguments presented by both parties, focusing on the specific provisions of the legal professional conduct framework that were allegedly breached. It evaluated the procedural fairness of the Board's actions and the evidence provided to substantiate the claims against Fernandez. Justice Blow considered the principles of natural justice and the importance of maintaining public confidence in the legal profession. Ultimately, the court found that the Board's actions were procedurally sound and justified, upholding the Board's decision and dismissing Fernandez's claims. The reasoning hinged on a detailed analysis of the evidence and the applicable legal standards, leading to a clear and reasoned decision in favour of the Legal Profession Board of Tasmania.
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.