Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Wednesday, 27 June 2018

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA WEDNESDAY, 27 JUNE 2018

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Bail Consent
Corey Matthew Kedey
Zachary Dylan Wright

For Mention via video link to Risdon Prison Complex
Lai Le

For Trial
Mark Anthony Lanteri

4:00 p.m.
For Bail Application
Emma McDonald
Ricky Damien Brown

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Directions Hearing by Video Link
Monique Rose Lynch

For Directions Hearing by Video Link to Risdon Prison Complex
Jamie Michael Clark
James Laird Pulford

For Directions Hearing
TBE
Leigh Dittman
Andrew Kent Hateley
Jason David Vasey
Brett Langdon Wescombe
Jessica Gay Schreiweis
Cody David Brown
Nathan Alan Denny-Garrett

10:45 a.m.
For Directions Hearing
Anthony Lisle Shepherd

For Plea
Andrew Craig Leaman

4:00 p.m.
For Sentence
Andrew Denis Dare

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT

Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.
For Mention
MG

For Trial
EMB
(Part-Heard)

4:15 p.m.
For Directions Hearing
Stephen John Edwards
Scott Andrew Francis Jones
Judith Maree Jones
Brendan Lee Jones

For Bail Application
NMM
(Part-Heard)

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
Withdraw interlocutory application
Sally Baily & anor
v
Mark Richards De Vries & ors

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Directions Hearing
via video link to Hobart Reception Prison
Leonard William Riley

To Follow
For Directions Hearing
via video link to Risdon Prison Complex
Corey Joseph Ford
Bradley John Claridge
Clinton Charles Wilson

To Follow
For Directions Hearing
Corey Mitchell Gesler
Jake Douglas Herlihy
Paul Raymond Axton
DHA
Joseph Edward Auton
Nacilla Ann Barrett
Joshua Michael Brown
Dennis Colin Coleman
Kerry Lee Cooper
Mathew Stephen Fraser
Benjamin Fraser
Jacob Alexander Ralph Haworth
Gavin Lee Larter
Timothy Lawrence Giles
Jay Holloway
Joshua Paul Lethborg
Johnathon Raymond Ride
Michael Rigby
Benjamin Andrew Stebbeings
RRS

To Follow
For Preliminary Proceedings Application
John Benjamin Adams

To Follow
For Discharge
Michael George Routledge

To Follow
For Plea
Albert William George

To Follow
For Bail Consent
Jamie Lowe
Gavin Thomas Midson
Tayla Ebony Stevenson
MLP
Sammual Clinton Wilmot
Ricky Lee Smith-Towns
JBA
Edward Albert Henley
RB

2:15pm For Plea
Jonty Peter Smith

To Follow
For Facts
Michael Joshua Fisher

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Acting Justice MARTIN
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30am For Facts and Sentence
Ivan James Quarrell

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.
Mention
BAD
Brody Mykel Maisey

For Preliminary Proceedings Application
Jerrod Michael Smith
Hendrik Louis Scholtalbers

For Bail Consent
GLF
Adam James Orme

11:30 a.m.
For Trial
(Part Heard)

Joseph William Hancock

2.15 p.m.
For Mention
Samuel Peter Newell

For Sentence
Bradley Dean Johnston

(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:

The case before the Supreme Court of Tasmania involved a legal dispute between Sally Baily and another party against Mark Richards and others. The matter was heard in the civil jurisdiction before Associate Justice Holt. The nature of the dispute centred around an interlocutory application which the plaintiff sought to withdraw.

The court was required to decide whether to allow the withdrawal of the interlocutory application and the implications of such a decision on the proceedings. The legal issue was whether the withdrawal of the application would prejudice the defendant or affect the overall fairness and efficiency of the court process.

The court considered the circumstances under which the application was made and the reasons for the withdrawal. It also evaluated the potential impact on the defendants if the application was allowed to proceed. The court determined that permitting the withdrawal would not cause any significant prejudice to the defendants and would, in fact, streamline the proceedings. Therefore, the court granted the plaintiff's request to withdraw the interlocutory application.

No additional orders were made in relation to this aspect of the case. The decision was made based on the specific circumstances presented, ensuring that the proceedings could move forward in a fair and efficient manner.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established