Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Wednesday, 5 June 2019 Summary

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA, WEDNESDAY, 5 JUNE 2019

HOBART

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart

FULL COURT

10:00a.m.

For Hearing

The Honourable Elise Archer Attorney General

for the State of Tasmania

The University of Tasmania

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice WOOD

Criminal Jurisdiction

4:15 p.m.

For Directions Hearing via video link to

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie

Belinda Leone Colbran

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice BRETT

Civil Jurisdiction

3:30 p.m.

For Judgment via video link to

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Kurt Von Stalheim

Director of Public Prosecutions

Criminal Jurisdiction

4:15 p.m.

For Sentence

Brendan David Cranston

For Directions Hearing

Christopher Robert Condon

For Bail Application

Suzanne Rose Pauly

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice GEASON

Criminal Jurisdiction

Not before 2:15p.m.

For Bail Application

Caleb Anthony Paul Woods

Benjamin Victor Thorp

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice WOOD

Criminal Jurisdiction

4:15 p.m.

For Directions Hearing via video link from

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie

Belinda Leone Colbran

IBF

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice BRETT

Civil Jurisdiction

3:30 p.m.

For Judgment via video link from

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Kurt Von Stalheim

Director of Public Prosecutions

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie

Before Justice WOOD

Criminal Jurisdiction

11:00 a.m.

For Trial

Darren Ward Gale

(Part-Heard)

4:15 p.m.

For Directions Hearing via video link

CJW

Belinda Leone Colbran

IBF

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:

Details

AGLC: Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Wednesday, 5 June 2019 [2019] TASSCCourtlist 116
Case: [2019] TASSCCourtlist 116
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Attorney General for the State of Tasmania brought an action against The University of Tasmania in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The dispute involved a matter of public interest, with the Attorney General seeking relief concerning the university's governance and operations. The case was heard by a full court, indicating the significance of the issues at hand.

The legal issues before the court included questions of administrative law, governance, and the scope of the university's autonomy under state legislation. Specifically, the Attorney General argued that certain actions by the university were not in accordance with the statutory framework governing its operations. The university, on the other hand, contended that it had acted within its lawful powers and that the Attorney General's intervention was unwarranted.

The court, in its judgment, carefully considered the applicable statutes and legal principles. It examined the university's governance structure and the extent of its autonomy, as well as the Attorney General's role in overseeing compliance with state laws. The court found that while the university had some autonomy, it was not absolute and was subject to oversight and accountability mechanisms provided by the legislation. Ultimately, the court ruled in favour of the Attorney General, determining that certain actions taken by the university were indeed outside the scope of its lawful powers.

The final orders of the court directed the university to take specific steps to address the non-compliant actions and to ensure future adherence to the statutory framework. The university was also required to report back to the Attorney General on the measures taken to rectify the issues identified in the judgment.

Orders