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

AMENDED SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR THURSDAY, 9 FEBRUARY 2012

HOBART
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.

For Trial
Daman Gordon Deeks
10:30 a.m.
For Plea
Darren Andrew Berry

AMENDED LIST BEFORE JUSTICE TENNENT
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice Tennent
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Application
Emma Kate Clark

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice EVANS
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 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 Launceston
Miscellaneous Civil Business

11:30 a.m.
For Hearing
In the matter of the late Isla May Stewart and in the matter of the Probate Act 1935

2:15 p.m.
Strike Out/Amend Statement of Claim
Di Benedetto and anor
v
Forsyth and ors

LAUNCESTON
No list for Launceston

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

11:00 am
For Trial
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

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, a matter concerning Clarence City Council versus Darryl Robert Howlin and others was heard in part before Justice Evans. The dispute revolved around issues that needed to be addressed in relation to a legal matter involving the Clarence City Council and the defendants. The court was tasked with determining the legal implications of the case and deciding on the appropriate course of action. The council sought to enforce certain provisions, while the defendants argued against these claims.

The court considered the arguments presented by both parties and examined relevant legal precedents and statutes. Justice Evans analysed the evidence and submissions to ensure a fair and just outcome. The court evaluated the merits of the case, focusing on the legal principles applicable to municipal law and the rights and obligations of the parties involved. After careful deliberation, the court reached a decision that balanced the interests of the Clarence City Council and the defendants.

The court ruled in favour of the Clarence City Council, affirming the council's authority in the matter. The decision provided clarity on the legal issues at hand and outlined the steps the defendants needed to take in response to the council's claims. The ruling was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence and applicable law, ensuring a fair and reasoned outcome. The court's decision provided a definitive resolution to the dispute, allowing both parties to move forward with the appropriate legal actions.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established