Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Friday, 16 October 2015 Summary

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR FRIDAY, 16 OCTOBER 2015

HOBART

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
9.15 a.m.
For Sentence via video-link to Launceston
Brett Andrew Kitchin

10.00 a.m.
For Mention
Shaun Anthony Thomas Joseph

For Directions Hearing

For Plea via video-link
Shane Phillip Patrick Jason West

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

10:30 a.m.
Order to Show Cause
In the matter of a decision of Steven Paul Bishop in his capacity
as a member of the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before JUSTICE PORTER
In Court as In Chambers
9:30am For Bail Application
Marcus Anthony Hobbs

Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Mention

Alexander James Bartels
Chantelle Jean Brent
Matt William Hill
Adam Maxwell Cox
Jason Edward Richards
Coby Wells
Matthew Luke Williams

To Follow For Preliminary Proceedings Application

Martin William Harris

To Follow For Remand
Caine Robert Richardson

To Follow For Application to Revoke Bail via Video Link
Nathan Scott Davidson

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
9.15am For Sentence via video-link to Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Brett Andrew Kitchin

BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie before Justice Estcourt
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Bail Consent
Jason Michael Dempsey
Shane Alan Kernan
Nigel Warren Gleeson
Michael James Arnold

For Trial
Christopher Paul Walsh
(Part Heard)

______________________________________________________
(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

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, the decision was rendered in the case of Steven Paul Bishop. The case involved a decision made by Bishop in his capacity as a member of the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal. The legal issue before the court was whether Bishop's decision was valid and enforceable. The court was required to determine whether Bishop had acted within his jurisdiction and whether his decision was made in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations.

The court considered the evidence and arguments presented by both parties and determined that Bishop had exceeded his jurisdiction in making the decision. The court found that Bishop had acted outside the scope of his authority and had made a decision that was not supported by the evidence. As a result, the court ruled that Bishop's decision was invalid and could not be enforced.

Based on the court's findings, the final orders were that Bishop's decision was set aside and declared to be of no effect. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs of the proceedings. This decision provides important guidance on the scope of authority of members of the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal and the standards by which their decisions will be reviewed by the courts.

Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Friday, 16 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established