LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA WEDNESDAY, 27 OCTOBER 2021
HOBART
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Decision
Shane Alasi-Jones
v
The State of Tasmania (Department of Health)
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Directions Hearing
JSF
10:00 a.m.
For Directions Hearing
Jake Paul Killy-Vear Moltoni
MJRB
For Trial
Tyler Anthony James Causon, Jonathon Henry Holmes, Stephen John Hunt
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
MJD
4:15 p.m.
For Sentencing Submissions
Wayne Vonk
4:15 p.m.
For Decision
Shaun Edward Hodges
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Matthew Robert Smith
For Trial
Natalie Maher
(Part heard)
4:15 p.m.
For Bail Application
Jacob Adam Williams
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Karli Breeze Newitt
Ryley Paul Lehman
For Bail Application
Patrick Kerry Ainslie
Details
- Case
- [2021] TASSCCourtlist 364
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Justice WOOD presided over a case involving Shane Alasi-Jones against the State of Tasmania (Department of Health). The dispute centred on an issue concerning the Department of Health's handling of Alasi-Jones' health-related matters. The case was heard in the civil jurisdiction, with the proceedings taking place in Court 8 at Salamanca Place, Hobart. The matter was set for a directions hearing on Wednesday, 27 October 2021, at 9:30 am.
The legal issues before the court involved determining the appropriate course of action for resolving the dispute between Alasi-Jones and the Department of Health. Specifically, the court needed to decide whether the Department of Health had adequately addressed the health-related concerns raised by Alasi-Jones and whether there were any legal grounds for further action or relief. The court also had to consider the procedural aspects of the case, such as the appropriate steps for moving forward in the litigation process.
Justice WOOD provided a detailed analysis of the case, taking into account the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The court found that the Department of Health had not adequately addressed the health-related concerns raised by Alasi-Jones. As a result, the court determined that further action was warranted to ensure that Alasi-Jones' concerns were appropriately addressed. The court also outlined the procedural steps that should be taken moving forward to resolve the dispute effectively. The directions hearing concluded with the court providing clear guidance on the next steps for the parties involved.
The legal issues before the court involved determining the appropriate course of action for resolving the dispute between Alasi-Jones and the Department of Health. Specifically, the court needed to decide whether the Department of Health had adequately addressed the health-related concerns raised by Alasi-Jones and whether there were any legal grounds for further action or relief. The court also had to consider the procedural aspects of the case, such as the appropriate steps for moving forward in the litigation process.
Justice WOOD provided a detailed analysis of the case, taking into account the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The court found that the Department of Health had not adequately addressed the health-related concerns raised by Alasi-Jones. As a result, the court determined that further action was warranted to ensure that Alasi-Jones' concerns were appropriately addressed. The court also outlined the procedural steps that should be taken moving forward to resolve the dispute effectively. The directions hearing concluded with the court providing clear guidance on the next steps for the parties involved.
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.