LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA, WEDNESDAY, 27 MAY 2020
HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Civil Jurisdiction
11:00 a.m
For Directions Hearing via telephone
Christopher John Boland v Clarence City Council
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
11:30 a.m
For Sentencing Submisions
Nathan Leigh Stebbings
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m
For Sentence via video-link to Court 1, Burnie
Benjamin Luke Coppleman
Andrew Simon Stubbs
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
9:00a.m.
Civil Jurisdiction
For Decision
McCarthy v Saltwood Pty Ltd
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice Brett
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15p.m.
For Directions Hearing
Jeffrey Ian Thompson
Brendan Lee Jones
Benjamin John Howlett
For Bail Application
Jake Mark Pearce
Kye Louney
LAUNCESTON
Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15p.m.
For Mention via Video Link
GMS
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m
For Sentence via video-link to Court 2, Hobart
Benjamin Luke Coppleman
Andrew Simon Stubbs
Details
- Case
- [2020] TASSCCourtlist 587
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Justice Wood presided over a case between Christopher John Boland and Clarence City Council. The matter involved a dispute that necessitated a directions hearing, which took place via telephone. The primary issue before the court was to determine the appropriate procedural steps and directions to be given in the context of the ongoing legal proceedings between the parties.
The court was tasked with considering the nature of the dispute and the relevant legal principles that should guide the further conduct of the case. This included assessing the evidence presented, understanding the claims and defenses of both parties, and deciding on the most efficient manner to proceed with the litigation. The court's decision involved an analysis of the procedural rules applicable to the case and the specific circumstances that might influence the court's directions.
Justice Wood, after evaluating the submissions and evidence, provided detailed directions for the next steps in the litigation process. The court outlined specific procedural requirements and timelines for the parties, aimed at ensuring a fair and efficient resolution of the dispute. The outcome of the hearing was a set of clear instructions for both parties, intended to streamline the proceedings and facilitate a timely and effective resolution of the case.
The court was tasked with considering the nature of the dispute and the relevant legal principles that should guide the further conduct of the case. This included assessing the evidence presented, understanding the claims and defenses of both parties, and deciding on the most efficient manner to proceed with the litigation. The court's decision involved an analysis of the procedural rules applicable to the case and the specific circumstances that might influence the court's directions.
Justice Wood, after evaluating the submissions and evidence, provided detailed directions for the next steps in the litigation process. The court outlined specific procedural requirements and timelines for the parties, aimed at ensuring a fair and efficient resolution of the dispute. The outcome of the hearing was a set of clear instructions for both parties, intended to streamline the proceedings and facilitate a timely and effective resolution of the case.
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.