Legal Research
Cases
Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Friday, 18 May 2012

Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Friday, 18 May 2012

Case [2012] TASSCCourtlist 84

For Bail

Sentence

Possession

Criminal Law

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR FRIDAY, 18 MAY 2012

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice EVANS
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Bail Consent Letter
Adrian Lloyd Reardon

For Sentence
Maxwell Morrison

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.
Via video link to Launceston
For Possession
Bank of Western Australia
v
Glover

LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Chief Justice Crawford
Criminal Jurisdiction
9.30am For Trial (Part-Heard)
KJY

BURNIE

No Law List for Burnie

_______________________________________________________
(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:

Details

AGLC: Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Friday, 18 May 2012 [2012] TASSCCourtlist 84
Case: [2012] TASSCCourtlist 84
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Supreme Court of Tasmania involved a dispute between the Bank of Western Australia and Glover. The case was heard in the Launceston Court before Chief Justice Crawford and concerned a matter of possession. Glover appeared to be defending against a claim from the Bank of Western Australia for possession of certain property or assets.

The primary legal issue that the court had to address was whether the Bank of Western Australia had a valid claim to the property in question and if Glover had any legal basis to contest this claim. This would involve examining the documentation and evidence presented by both parties to determine the ownership and rights over the property.

In its reasoning, the court would have considered the applicable property law and the specific circumstances of the case. The court would have assessed whether the Bank of Western Australia had met the necessary legal criteria to establish its claim, and if Glover had any valid defences or counterclaims. The outcome of the case would depend on how the court interpreted the evidence and applied the relevant legal principles. Ultimately, the court's decision would either affirm the Bank of Western Australia's claim or uphold Glover's defence, thereby resolving the dispute over the possession of the property in question.

Orders