Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Wednesday, 29 November 2018

Case [2018] TASSCCourtlist 573


LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA WEDNESDAY, 29 NOVEMBER 2018

HOBART

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT

Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Kenneth David Reynolds

For Trial
AGD

Civil Jurisdiction
Before the FULL COURT
4:00 p.m.
For Judgment
Chris Boland
v
Andrea Boxall and the Legal Profession Board of Tasmania

Jane Elizabeth Holden
v
The State of Tasmania

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Judgment via video link to Court 2,
Cameron Street, Launceston

Raff Angus Pty Ltd
v
Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal

Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Jamie Michael Clark
(Part-Heard)

4:15 p.m.
For Bail Application
HFR  

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice Porter
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:00 p.m.
For Bail Application
Mark Adrian Frankcombe
Todd Bates

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Motion to Review
Kim Dale Eagling
v
Acting Sergeant Scott Wilkie

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice Porter
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Newdegate Nominees Pty Ltd t/a The State Cinema and anor
v
Sara Pensalfini

LAUNCESTON

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00am For Trial (Part Heard)
Fingal Pastoral Pty Ltd
v
Page Seager Lawyers

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice BRETT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:30am For Judgment via video link from
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Raff Angus Pty Ltd
v
Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Bail Consent
Christopher Brewer Parker

To Follow
For Mention
Carl Maxwell Hall

To Follow
For Trial (Part Heard)

Belinda Leone Colbran

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie 
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention 
David John Miller

For Trial
Jeremy Brad Scott

4.00 p.m.
For Sentencing Hearing  
Jessica Chloe Richards

(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:

Details
AGLC
Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Wednesday, 29 November 2018 [2018] TASSCCourtlist 573
Case
[2018] TASSCCourtlist 573
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Tasmania heard the case of Chris Boland v Andrea Boxall and the Legal Profession Board of Tasmania. The plaintiff, Chris Boland, was contesting a decision made by the Legal Profession Board of Tasmania regarding the defendant, Andrea Boxall. The case was heard before Justice Brett, who provided a judgment via video link to Court 2 in Launceston. The central legal issues in the case concerned the interpretation and application of legal professional conduct rules and the process for disciplinary actions within the legal profession.

Justice Brett examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, focusing on whether the Legal Profession Board had acted within its powers and whether the decision made was fair and justified. The court considered the statutory framework governing the Legal Profession Board's disciplinary powers, as well as relevant case law on the standard of proof required in such proceedings. Justice Brett concluded that the Board's decision was lawful and appropriate given the evidence and the applicable legal standards.

As a result of this judgment, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application and upheld the decision of the Legal Profession Board. The final orders of the court reflected this outcome, affirming the Board's decision and dismissing the plaintiff's appeal.

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.