Second Amended Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Friday, 4 March 2016

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR FRIDAY, 4 MARCH 2016

SECOND AMENDED LIST FOR HOBART

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
In Court as in Chambers
10:00 a.m.
For Bail Application
Melita Joanne Matepi

Civil Jurisdiction
In Court as in Chambers
3:00 p.m.
For Directions Hearing
Dyson Corporate Security Pty Ltd
v
Michele Kerr

LAUNCESTON
No list for Launceston.

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

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, a significant legal event was scheduled for Friday, 4 March 2016. The court was set to hear a bail application from Melita Joanne Matepi and a directions hearing for a civil matter involving Dyson Corporate Security Pty Ltd and Michele Kerr. The location for these proceedings was Court 7 at Salamanca Place in Hobart. The case involving Matepi was designated for the criminal jurisdiction of the court, while the civil matter was set to be addressed in the civil jurisdiction.

The court was required to consider the bail application from Matepi, determining whether she should be granted bail pending her trial. Additionally, the court needed to address the directions hearing for the civil case, which likely involved guiding the parties on the procedural steps moving forward. This included possibly scheduling the next steps, determining the admissibility of evidence, or addressing other procedural issues that had arisen in the case between Dyson Corporate Security Pty Ltd and Michele Kerr.

The court's reasoning and outcome were not detailed in the provided excerpt, but the nature of these hearings typically involves a detailed examination of the evidence presented and the legal arguments from both sides. The bail decision would have been based on factors such as the severity of the alleged offence, the risk of flight, and the potential impact on the community. In the civil matter, the court would have directed the parties on how to proceed with the litigation, potentially setting a timeline for the exchange of evidence and preparing for a trial if necessary.

No final orders were detailed in the provided excerpt, but it is expected that the court would have issued specific directions or decisions following the hearings that would guide the parties in their respective cases.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established