Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Wednesday, 27 February 2019 Summary

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA WEDNESDAY, 27 FEBRUARY 2019

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Matthew John Davey
David John Eaton
Daniel Cure
(Part-Heard)

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m.
For Motion to Review
Acting Sergeant Michael Bonde
v
James Frederick Edward Slevin

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT

Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.
For Sentencing Submissions
Wayne William Howlett

For Directions Hearing
Troy Daniel Perry

For Trial
RJD
(Part-Heard)

4:15 p.m.
For Plea
KJH

For Bail Application
MLJ

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
Directions Hearings by Telephone
Tasmanian Land Company Ltd
v
Van Dairy Group Pty Ltd

9:45 a.m.
Directions Hearing by Telephone
Elizabeth Jane Hope as personal representative
of the Estate of Peter Lyndsay Hope and ors
v
George Papoutsakis and ors

10:30 a.m.
Extend Caveat
Katherine Anne Lowing and anor
v
38 Waterworks Road Pty Ltd and anor

LAUNCESTON

NO LAW LIST FOR LAUNCESTON

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Directions Hearing
Matthew David Gillies

For Sentence
David John Miller

For Disputed Facts Hearing
Damien Wayne Smith

(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

The matter of Acting Sergeant Michael Bonde v James Frederick Edward Slevin was heard before Justice Brett in the Supreme Court of Tasmania on 27 February 2019. The dispute at hand revolved around a motion to review filed by Acting Sergeant Bonde against the decisions made by James Slevin. The central legal issues that the court needed to address were whether the decisions of James Slevin were in accordance with the law and whether there were any grounds for the review of these decisions.

Justice Brett meticulously examined the arguments presented by both parties. The court assessed the validity of the review application by considering the legal framework governing such reviews, including the criteria for a successful review application and the extent of the court's jurisdiction in reviewing administrative decisions. The court also evaluated the specific decisions made by James Slevin to determine whether they were lawful, rational, and properly exercised.

After thorough deliberation, Justice Brett concluded that the decisions made by James Slevin were indeed in line with the law and that there were no valid grounds for a review. Consequently, the motion to review was dismissed. The court's decision was based on the comprehensive analysis of the legal standards and the evidence presented in the case. This ruling ensured that the original decisions remained intact and that no further judicial intervention was necessary.

Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Wednesday, 27 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established