Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Wednesday, 8 February 2017

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA WEDNESDAY, 8 FEBRUARY 2017

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Garry James Brodie
A Witness
Kyle Rix Stephens

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.

For Trial
Klaus Dieter Neubert
(Part-Heard)

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Michael John Kelleher
v
Elizabeth Avery

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
Directions Hearing
Norman Edward Ohl
v
The State of Tasmania

Civil Jurisdiction
4:00 p.m.
Directions Hearing by Telephone
Apple Air Pty Ltd and anor
v
Zbigniew Wilczynski

LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Mention
John Rettas

To Follow
For Trial
WMC

4:15pm For Bail Application
Paul William Shaw
Kurt Stanley Arnol

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie before Chief Justice Blow
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Plea
Daniel Lee Upton

For Trial
Gavin Richard Baldwin
(Part-Heard)

(Note: Initials are used where publication of a person's name is not permitted by law.)

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:

Email subscriptions to the law lists of other courts can be requested at:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Michael John Kelleher v Elizabeth Avery was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The plaintiff, Michael John Kelleher, brought proceedings against the defendant, Elizabeth Avery. The nature of the dispute involved a civil claim, the specifics of which are not detailed in the extract. The hearing took place before Associate Justice Holt in Court 3 at Salamanca Place, Hobart.

The legal issues before the court were related to the civil claim brought by the plaintiff against the defendant. The exact nature of the claim and the legal principles that would be applied to resolve it were the central points of focus for the court. The court had to determine whether the plaintiff's claims were substantiated and, if so, to what extent the defendant was liable.

The court's reasoning and outcome were not explicitly detailed in the extract, but the mention of the case indicates that it was listed for a hearing. Associate Justice Holt would have considered the evidence presented, the legal arguments of both parties, and applicable laws and precedents to reach a decision. The final orders, if made, would have addressed the relief sought by the plaintiff and any counterclaims by the defendant.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established