Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Wednesday, 26 August 2020

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA WEDNESDAY, 26 AUGUST 2020

HOBART

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the FULL COURT
10:00 a.m
For Hearing
Christopher John Boland v Clarence City Council

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m.
For Sentence
Shaun Brodie Parremore

4:00 p.m.
For Bail Variation Application
Joe Robert Moeakiola

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:00a.m.
For Bail Application via Video Link
Mathew John Baker

4:15p.m.
For Bail Application via Video Link
Michael John Hopkinson

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm
For Mention via video link to Risdon Prison Complex
Claude James Wigg

For Sentence via video link to Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Paul Lance Broad
Steven Anthony Dunne

4:30pm
For Bail Application via video link to Court 1,
Cameron Street, Launceston and Mary Hutchinson Women’s Prison
Dawn Anne-Marie Ward

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Sentence
Nicholas John Wright

9:45 a.m.
For Sentence
Courtney Jane McGuire

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Sentencing Submissions
Luke Anthony Shaw

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm
For Sentence via video link from Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Paul Lance Broad
Steven Anthony Dunne

4:30pm
For Bail Application via video link from Court 8,
Salamanca Place, Hobart and Mary Hutchinson Women’s Prison
Dawn Anne-Marie Ward

BURNIE

NO LAW LIST FOR BURNIE

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Tasmania heard a case involving Christopher John Boland and Clarence City Council. The nature of the dispute was not detailed in the extract, but it was heard before the full court. The legal issues in the case were not explicitly stated, but the full court's involvement suggests that it may have been a matter of significant importance or complexity. The court's reasoning and outcome were not provided in the extract, so it is not possible to determine how the court resolved the dispute. However, the fact that the case was heard before the full court indicates that it was likely a matter of considerable importance or complexity. The final orders of the court were not provided in the extract, so it is not possible to determine the outcome of the case. It is possible that the orders were not made public, or that they were made after the extract was published. In any case, the outcome of the case is not relevant to the current discussion.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established