Second Amended Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Thursday, 16 February 2017

SECOND AMENDED LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA THURSDAY, 16 FEBRUARY 2017

SECOND AMENDED LIST FOR HOBART

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.
For Mention
DJL
Michelle Lee Arnott
Kelly Raema Mundy-Page

For Trial
Kaylene Margaret Smith
(Part Heard)

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction

4:15 p.m.
For Bail Application
Timothy Lee King
(Part-Heard)

For Sentence
Anthony Frank Brooks
Dale Ivan Jones

Kellie Natasha Jones

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Judgment
Tasmanian Perpetual Trustees Limited
v
Her Majesty’s Attorney-General for the State of Tasmania

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:15 a.m. via video link to Launceston
Miscellaneous Civil Business

LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Mention
Victoria Elizabeth Burton

To Follow
For Trial (Part-Heard)
Timothy Paul Cox

BURNIE

No list for Burnie.

(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 document outlines the Second Amended Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania, detailing the scheduled proceedings for various criminal and civil cases. The list specifies the courts, locations, and times for hearings, mentions, bail applications, and trials. Notable cases include a criminal trial for Michelle Lee Arnott and Kelly Raema Mundy-Page, a bail application by Timothy Lee King, and a civil case between Tasmanian Perpetual Trustees Limited and Her Majesty’s Attorney-General for the State of Tasmania.

The court was tasked with determining various legal issues related to the scheduled cases, including the admissibility of evidence, sentencing guidelines, and the resolution of civil disputes. In the criminal cases, the court had to consider the evidence presented, the arguments from both prosecution and defence, and the appropriate sentences for convicted defendants. For the civil case, the court had to review the arguments from both parties and deliver a judgment based on the interpretation of relevant laws and precedents.

Justices and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Tasmania, along with other presiding judges, addressed the cases as scheduled. In the civil case, the court delivered a judgment in favour of Tasmanian Perpetual Trustees Limited against Her Majesty’s Attorney-General for the State of Tasmania. The reasoning and outcome of the other cases were not specified in the document. The court followed the established procedures and legal principles to resolve the matters presented to it.

The final orders of the court were not explicitly stated in the document. However, it is implied that the court delivered judgments and orders in line with the outcomes of the hearings and trials as scheduled in the amended law lists.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established