Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Wednesday 9 December, 2020

Case [2020] TASSCCourtlist 1140


LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA, WEDNESDAY 9 DECEMBER, 2020


HOBART

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the FULL COURT
4:15 p.m.
For Judgment
Kristy Lee Bourne in her capacity as the Director of Corrective Services
v
Duc Van Nguyen


Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Motion to Review
1/C Constable Alisha Barnes
v
Samuel Michael Lee Hansen


PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:30pm
For Plea from Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
JSS


Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Civil Jurisdiction
10.00am
For Trial
Tasmanian Land Company Pty Ltd
v
Van Dairy Group Ltd
(Part-heard)


Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm
For Sentence
Geoffrey Paul Bennett-Scrimshaw
Robert Edward Lovell


Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Mention
Andrew Brett Bell
Christopher Mac Hatty
Ryan Edward Brown
Samuel William David Maple
Jason Darrell Triffett
Aaron James Irwin

For Plea
Luke Matthew John Chatters
David Hau Moeakiola

For Sentencing submissions
Aaron Charles McShane

For Application
Richard Gordon Dickenson

2.15p.m
For Plea
Jmarli Rex Burgess

For Bail Application
Tony Matthew White
(Part heard)

Not before 3.00p.m
For Mention
Daniel Nicky Smith

4:00p.m.
For Sentence
NLW


LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Civil Jurisdiction
9:45 a.m.
For Admission to the Legal Profession
Vivek Satya Narayan Foot

Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Nicholas David Preston
Heath Maxwell Lethborg

For Trial
Hasley James Maynard
(part-heard)

4:15 p.m.
For Directions Hearing
Issac Jess Hall

For Plea
Michael Gregory Fish

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Directions Hearing via video link to Risdon Prison Complex
Benjamin John Bradshaw

For Directions Hearing
Jacqueline Maree Broomhall
Christopher Andrew Todd

2:30pm
For Plea via video link to PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart
JSS

4:15pm
For Mention
Benjamin Matthew Cosgrove
David McGrath Smith

Details
AGLC
Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Wednesday 9 December, 2020 [2020] TASSCCourtlist 1140
Case
[2020] TASSCCourtlist 1140
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kristy Lee Bourne, as the Director of Corrective Services, filed a case against Duc Van Nguyen in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The nature of the dispute is not detailed in the provided excerpt but generally pertains to matters within the scope of the Director's duties under the Corrective Services Act. The case was heard by Justice ESTCOURT. The legal issues before the court likely involved interpretation and application of the Corrective Services Act and any relevant case law or statutory provisions governing the Director's authority and responsibilities.

The court had to consider the specific legal arguments presented by both parties and apply the relevant legal principles to the facts of the case. This would involve examining the Director's actions and whether they complied with the statutory framework and any procedural fairness requirements. The court's reasoning would have focused on interpreting the relevant provisions of the Corrective Services Act and determining if the Director's actions were justified and lawful. The outcome would have been based on whether the Director's actions were found to be within the bounds of her statutory powers and whether any procedural errors or breaches of natural justice were present.

The court's decision would have been based on a thorough analysis of the evidence and legal arguments presented. The final orders would have reflected the court's determination on the legality and appropriateness of the Director's actions. The court may have affirmed the Director's actions, quashed them, or made other orders as deemed necessary to resolve the dispute. The precise outcome and any orders made by the court are not detailed in the provided excerpt, but they would have been communicated in the written judgment or order following the hearing.

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.