***Spam(7.103)*** Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Friday, 7 November 2014 Summary

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR FRIDAY, 7 NOVEMBER 2014

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:15 a.m.
For Directions Hearing
Tony John Pettit

10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Nathan Robert Griffith
(Part-Heard)

For Sentence
Jason Charles Dare

For Plea
John Darren Rowbottom

For Application to Review an Order Suspending Sentence
Nicole Maree McGowan

For Bail Consent
Michael James Harris

2:15pm
For Sentence
Dylan Vincent Phillips

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m.
For Mention
Brent Anthony Cordwell

For Plea
Jess Aaron Morgan

For Facts and Sentence
Samuel John Devine

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW

Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m.
For Directions Hearing
David John Hurd

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
Set Aside Judgment
Boat Harbour Beach Blue Waters Pty Ltd
v
Matthews Properties Pty Ltd and Ors

LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30am For Mention
A Witness

10:00am For Mention
Jacob Scott Kevin Riley-McDonald

For Plea
Shaun David Lillico

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiciton
9:30am For Trial (Part Heard)
Nicholas Charles Pitt

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 matter concerning the application of the "Spam(7.103)" law was heard. The case involved Boat Harbour Beach Blue Waters Pty Ltd as the plaintiff against Matthews Properties Pty Ltd and others. The plaintiff sought to set aside a judgment previously rendered in the case, raising issues concerning the application and interpretation of the Spam Act. The court had to determine whether the application was valid and whether the circumstances warranted setting aside the judgment.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the Spam Act, specifically section 7.103, which deals with the setting aside of judgments. The court needed to assess the grounds on which the plaintiff based their application, including whether there were any errors in the initial judgment or new evidence that could affect the outcome. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the application was made within the appropriate timeframe and if there were any valid reasons for the delay.

Justice PEARCE, who presided over the case, examined the application meticulously. The court found that the plaintiff had provided sufficient grounds for setting aside the judgment, as there were procedural errors in the initial proceedings that materially affected the outcome. The court was also satisfied that the application was made in a timely manner and that the plaintiff had not acted in a way that would warrant a refusal of the application. Consequently, the court granted the application and set aside the previous judgment.

The final orders of the court mandated that the previous judgment be set aside and that the case be remitted for further proceedings, in accordance with the Spam Act. This decision highlighted the importance of procedural correctness in legal proceedings and the court's willingness to correct errors where necessary to ensure justice.

Spam(7.103) Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Friday, 7 November 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established