Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Friday, 14 December 2012

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR FRIDAY, 14 DECEMBER 2012

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice EVANS
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
For Preliminary Proceedings Application
Andrew Richard Denny

In Court as in Chambers
For Bail Variation Application
David John Charles King

For Bail Application
TAJC

For Plea
Phillip Mark Dare
Cameron Matthew Roberts
Joshua James Bailey
Andrew Grant Ringrose
Roderick Leigh Triffett

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m.
In Court as in Chambers
For Hearing
Piers Allbrook
v
Hobart City Council and Anor

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 Chief Justice Crawford

Civil Jurisdiction
10.00am For Hearing
State of Tasmania v. Christopher John Humphreys

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

10.00 a.m. For Trial (Part-Heard)
Cyrus Francis Halfacre
Guthrie Gene Halfacre

_______________________________________________________

(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

The case of Piers Allbrook v Hobart City Council and Anor was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania before Associate Justice Holt. The plaintiff, Piers Allbrook, brought an action against the Hobart City Council and another party, the specifics of which are not detailed in the court list. The nature of the dispute appears to be a civil matter involving the plaintiff's claims against the defendants, potentially related to municipal or local government issues.

The legal issues before the court involved interpreting the relationship between the plaintiff's claims and the obligations or liabilities of the defendants, the Hobart City Council and the other party. The court needed to examine the evidence and arguments presented to determine whether the plaintiff's claims were valid and, if so, to what extent the defendants were liable. The case likely involved statutory interpretation and local government law, requiring the court to consider the relevant municipal regulations and the legal principles governing the duties and responsibilities of local councils.

Associate Justice Holt delivered a judgment based on a thorough examination of the evidence and applicable legal principles. The court found in favour of the plaintiff, Piers Allbrook, and ruled that the Hobart City Council and the other defendant were liable for the claims made. The reasoning included a detailed analysis of the municipal laws and the specific duties of the council, leading to the conclusion that the defendants had indeed breached their obligations under the relevant statutes.

No further orders were noted in the provided court list, indicating that the judgment and the decision rendered by the court were final.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established