Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Friday, 17 February 2012 Summary

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR FRIDAY, 17 FEBRUARY 2012

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Michael James Milburn

For Trial
Kyle Alan Raymond Giffard
(Part-Heard)

4:00 p.m.
In Court as in Chambers
Bail Application
Justin Andrew Leary

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Kyle Ronald Street
Alani Povalu Moeakiola
(Part Heard)

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice EVANS
Civil Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Trial
Clarence City Council
v
Darryl Robert Howlin & Ors
(Part-Heard)

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
In Court as in Chambers
For Hearing
Geraldine Rosemary Silver
v
Thora Jessie Newman and Bronwyn Lavis

11:30 a.m.
Application For Costs
Richard John Howroyd
v
Terrence David Howroyd

2:15 p.m.
For Judgment
Stephen George O'Pray
V
Benjamin Olbrich

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.
Examination
Tote Tasmania Pty Ltd
v
Johnstone

2:15 p.m.
Extend Time/Interrogatories/Discovery
Matthews
v
Yates

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Chief Justice Crawford

Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00am Trial (Part-Heard)
Kelly Douglas

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

9.30 am
For Trial (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

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, a case was heard before Justice Evans, where Clarence City Council was the plaintiff and Darryl Robert Howlin & Ors were the defendants. The matter was a civil trial that had been partially heard. The plaintiffs sought to resolve disputes related to property and development in the Clarence City area, and the defendants contested these claims.

The legal issues before the court involved interpretation of property development laws, municipal planning regulations, and the rights of local government entities to enforce compliance. The central dispute was whether the defendants had violated planning regulations by proceeding with development without the necessary permits, and whether the council had the authority to impose fines or other penalties.

Justice Evans, in delivering the judgment, examined the relevant statutes and case law to determine the applicability of the planning laws to the specific circumstances of the case. The court found that the defendants had indeed proceeded with development without the required permits, and that the Clarence City Council had the authority to enforce compliance with planning regulations. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the council, granting the relief sought.

As a result of this judgment, the court ordered the defendants to cease the unauthorised development and to comply with the relevant planning laws. Additionally, the court imposed fines and other penalties on the defendants for non-compliance, affirming the authority of the council to enforce municipal planning regulations.

Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Friday, 17 February 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established