Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Friday, 10 February 2012

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR FRIDAY, 10 FEBRUARY 2012

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.

For Trial
Daman Gordon Deeks

(Part Heard)

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice EVANS
Civil Jurisdiction
9:15 a.m.
For Trial
Clarence City Council
v
Darryl Robert Howlin & Ors
(Part-Heard)

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:15 a.m.
Via Video Link to Burnie
Miscellaneous Civil Business

11:00 a.m.
Prepare for Trial
Woodham v Roberts Limited

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Chief Justice Crawford
Criminal Jurisdiction

10.00am For Application to Extend Time
Alison Christine Priest

For Mention
Thomas James Aliano
Brody Leigh Munro
Scott Thomas Millwood
ZBEI
Stuart Gordon Shaw

For Plea
Matthew Wayne Leslie
Colin Olding
Jarrod Arthur Phillips
Tamara Rose Donovan

2.15pm For Plea
Reginald Robert Young

BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street Burnie before Justice Porter
Criminal Jurisdiction

9.30 am
In Court as in Chambers
Bail Application
Brent Phillip Michael Hall

In Court
10.00 am
For Plea
Matthew David Buck

For Plea via video-link
Grant Andrew Crawford
William Tyler Frame

For Application
Casey William Edward Ditcham
Daniel James Latimore
HRRB
Damien Robert Denness

10:30 am
For Voire-Dire (part-heard)
JWT

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 case of Clarence City Council v Darryl Robert Howlin & Ors was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania on February 10, 2012. The case was part-heard, indicating that it had not been concluded and would continue at a later date. The court involved was the Civil Jurisdiction, presided over by Justice Evans. The dispute involved the Clarence City Council taking legal action against Darryl Robert Howlin and others. The nature of the case and the specific claims or defenses were not detailed in the excerpt.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide were not explicitly stated in the document, but it can be inferred that the case involved civil matters pertaining to the Clarence City Council's claims against the defendants. The court would need to address the validity of the Council's claims, the defendants' responses, and any other relevant legal principles or precedents.

The court's reasoning and outcome were not provided in the excerpt, and it is likely that a detailed judgment will be issued at a later date. The court's decision would depend on the evidence presented and the applicable laws. It is important to note that the case was part-heard, which means that the court had not reached a final decision at the time of the excerpt.

No final orders were made in this excerpt, as the case was still ongoing at the time. Further information about the case and the court's decision will be available in future court documents or judgments.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established