Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Friday, 10 April 2015

Case [2015] TASSCCourtlist 63


SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR FRIDAY, 10 APRIL 2015

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

LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE

Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00am For Trial (Part-Heard)
Marco Daniel Rusterholz

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:

Details
AGLC
Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Friday, 10 April 2015 [2015] TASSCCourtlist 63
Case
[2015] TASSCCourtlist 63
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Supreme Court of Tasmania involved a dispute between two parties. The exact nature of the dispute was not specified in the court listing, but it was scheduled for hearing in the Hobart Court 3 on 10 April 2015 at 9:15 a.m. The proceedings were to be conducted via a video link to Burnie, indicating that at least one party was not physically present in the Hobart court. This case was part of the miscellaneous civil business, suggesting it covered a broad range of civil matters not confined to specific categories such as family law or commercial disputes.

The legal issues that the court needed to address were not explicitly stated in the court listing. However, given that the case was categorised under miscellaneous civil business, it likely involved a variety of potential legal issues, such as contract disputes, personal injury claims, or property matters. The court would have needed to interpret relevant laws and apply legal principles to the facts presented to reach a decision. The outcome of the hearing would depend on the evidence provided by both parties and the legal arguments advanced.

The court's reasoning and outcome were not detailed in the listing provided. Typically, such listings do not include judgments or detailed reasoning unless the case is of significant public interest or precedent-setting. The Supreme Court of Tasmania would have considered the evidence and submissions from both parties before reaching a decision. The final outcome would have been communicated through a written judgment, which would outline the court's findings, legal reasoning, and the final decision on the dispute. This judgment would then be available for review by the parties and could potentially be appealed to higher courts if either party was dissatisfied with the outcome.

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.