SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR FRIDAY, 1 NOVEMBER 2013
HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Ben James Cleary
Shane Paul Bennett
Dean Andrew Mazey
SAJ
CJP
Gary Alan Dowling
Danny Ian Cheeseman
Anthony Robert Hawkins
For Bail Consent
Matthew John Davey
For Forfeiture Application
Sonya Maree Meares
2:15 p.m.
For Sentence
Rory John Clements
Melanie Joy Hovington
Troy Terrence Bell
Andrew Leigh Webb
Ricky Albert Devine
Melissa Mollross
Sari Daisy Burns Mackintosh
Leesa Nicole Tovey
Shane Christopher Farrell
Brodie Michael Roberts
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:15 a.m. via video link from Launceston Court 1
For Application
Aaron James Grant
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Constable Roger Collins
v
Rocco Caccavo
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Civil Jurisdiction
3:30 p.m.
For Judgment
Damien Chatwin
v
Jessica Godfrey
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice Wood
Criminal Jurisdiction
9.15am For Application by Video-Link to Court 8, Supreme Court, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Aaron James Grant
9.45am For Bail Application
Mathew James Coventry
For Bail Variation
Shane Vivian Smith
For Application
Jason Robert Burns
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:
- AGLC
- Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Friday, 1 November 2013 [2013] TASSCCourtlist 229
- Case
- [2013] TASSCCourtlist 229
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with addressing various legal issues related to the cases listed, such as determining bail conditions, ruling on forfeiture applications, and making decisions on civil disputes. Each case required careful consideration of the relevant laws and evidence presented, with outcomes that could significantly impact the parties involved.
The Supreme Court of Tasmania provided detailed rulings and outcomes for each matter heard. While specifics of each case's outcome are not detailed in the document, the court's decisions would have been based on thorough legal analysis and adherence to established legal principles. The final orders and judgments would have been communicated to the parties involved in each case.
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.