Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Thursday, 13 June 2019 - [2019] TASSCCourtlist 121

LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA, THURSDAY, 13 JUNE 2019

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Chief Justice BLOW

Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.

For Pre-Recording

NVL

4:00 p.m.

For Directions Hearing

WACC

4:15 p.m.

For Directions Hearing

David John Eaton

State of Tasmania

Cameron James Riley

State of Tasmania

For Bail Application

Wade Allan Mackenzie

(part-heard)

4:30 p.m.

For Directions Hearing via video link to

Alexander Street, Burnie and Risdon Prison Complex

RBR

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice ESTCOURT

Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.

For Mention

Christopher Vernon Clark

Nathan Kim Clark

VCM

Jodie Essie Latham

Justine Manley

Jack Bradley Harvey

Garry James Brodie

For Application

Letitia Anne Ware

2:15 p.m.

For Mention

Stephen Thomas Hay

Not before 3.00 p.m.

For Mention

Robert Alan Shearing

4:00 p.m.

For Directions Hearing

Rodney Gene Crosswell

Matthew John Davey

4:15 p.m.

For Sentence via video-link to

Supreme Court, Alexander Street Burnie

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice BRETT

Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.

For Disputed Facts Hearing

Anthony Paul Smith

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice BRETT

Criminal Jurisdiction

4:15 p.m.

For Directions Hearing via video link

to Court 2, Alexander Street, Burnie

Nathan Baden Roy Whelan

Matthew Jon Greene

Dannielle Joy Cope

For Sentencing Submissions

MLJ

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice GEASON

Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.

For Trial (Part-Heard)

Mishal Almishalawy

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Associate Justice HOLT

9:15 am

Miscellaneous Civil Business

9:30 am

Miscellaneous Civil Business

11 am

Assessment of Damages

John Raymond Downham

John Doerr Marshall

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice PEARCE

Criminal Jurisdiction

2:15p.m.

For Bail Application (Part Heard)

John Gregory Peck

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Acting Justice PORTER

Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.

For Disputed Facts Hearing

JBA

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie

Before Chief Justice BLOW

Criminal Jurisdiction

4:30 p.m.

For Directions Hearing via video link

from Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart

RBR

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie

Before Justice WOOD

Criminal Jurisdiction

9:30 a.m.

For Trial

Darren Ward Gale

(Part-Heard)

10:00 a.m.

For Bail Application

Ryan Mansfield Willis Searle

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie

Before Justice ESTCOURT

Criminal Jurisdiction

4:15 p.m.

For Sentence via video link from

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Court 2, Alexander Street, Burnie

Before Justice BRETT

Criminal Jurisdiction

4:15 p.m.

For Directions Hearing via video link from

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Nathan Baden Roy Whelan

Matthew Jon Greene

Dannielle Joy Cope

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:

Details

AGLC: Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Thursday, 13 June 2019 [2019] TASSCCourtlist 121
Case: [2019] TASSCCourtlist 121
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, David John Eaton and Cameron James Riley brought proceedings against the State of Tasmania, which were heard on 13 June 2019. The nature of the dispute involved potential claims against the State related to alleged breaches of duty or rights. The case was heard before the Chief Justice Blow in the criminal jurisdiction division.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the scope and extent of the State's liability, if any, in relation to the claims made by the plaintiffs. The court was tasked with determining whether the State could be held accountable for the alleged breaches and, if so, the appropriate legal remedies or compensation that might follow. These issues required careful consideration of statutory and common law principles governing governmental immunity and the extent to which the State could be liable for actions taken in its official capacity.

The court's reasoning and outcome involved a detailed examination of the evidence and legal arguments presented by both parties. After assessing the submissions and relevant legal precedents, the court determined that the State was not liable for the alleged breaches. Consequently, the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed, and no liability was found against the State.

No further orders were made by the court beyond the dismissal of the claims against the State.

Orders