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 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 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 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

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, the Full Court presided over a case involving Christopher John Boland as the plaintiff and Clarence City Council as the defendant. The nature of the dispute was not explicitly detailed in the text, but it was heard in the Hobart Court. The Full Court was tasked with addressing a range of legal issues pertinent to the case. These issues involved interpreting the relevant statutory and common law frameworks that governed the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, as well as any specific contractual or tortious claims that might have been raised.

The court’s reasoning focused on the interpretation and application of the relevant legal principles to the facts of the case. Justice ESTCOURT, Justice BRETT, Justice GEASON, and Acting Justice PORTER collectively evaluated the evidence presented and the arguments made by both parties. They considered the statutory obligations of the Clarence City Council and the rights of the plaintiff under the relevant legislation. Additionally, they examined any common law principles that might apply, such as negligence or breach of statutory duty. The outcome of the case hinged on the court's determination of whether the Clarence City Council had fulfilled its obligations and, if not, the extent of any liability or remedies available to the plaintiff.

The final orders of the court were not detailed in the provided text, but typically such decisions would outline the specific findings and judgments of the court, including any monetary compensation, declarations, or other remedies awarded to the plaintiff. The court's judgment would also include any costs orders and directions for enforcement or further actions as necessary.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established