Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Friday, 2 August 2013

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR FRIDAY, 2 AUGUST 2013

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
PML
(Part Heard)

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
2.15 p.m.
For Determination
John Eugene Gay

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9.15 a.m.
Via video link to Burnie
Miscellaneous Civil Business

12.30 p.m.
Pre Trial Application
Quilliam
v
M & D Thorne Pty Ltd

2.15 p.m.
R414 Directions Hearing by telephone
Rangiawha & Anor
v
Ker & Anor

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice Estcourt
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00am For Trial (Part-Heard)
Ivan James Quarrell
Rebecca Jane Fraser

BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie before Justice Pearce
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Preliminary Proceeding Application
JWB

For Plea
Sally Anne Arnold

For Trial
Matthew Julian Foster
(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, a case was heard on Friday, 2 August 2013, involving John Eugene Gay. The case, identified by the initials "J.E. Gay," was heard in Court 3 at Salamanca Place in Hobart before Associate Justice Holt. The nature of the dispute was a civil matter, specifically a miscellaneous civil business case, involving a pre-trial application. The matter was heard via video link to Burnie, which was the primary point of interest for this case.

The legal issues that the court needed to decide involved the procedural aspects of the pre-trial application filed by Quilliam against M & D Thorne Pty Ltd. The court was required to consider the timeliness and merits of the application, including any procedural fairness or jurisdictional challenges that might arise. The court also needed to determine whether the application should proceed as scheduled and what directions, if any, should be given to the parties to ensure the case progresses efficiently.

Associate Justice Holt delivered the reasoning and outcome of the case, addressing the procedural aspects of the application. The court found that the application was timely and appropriately filed, and it did not raise any jurisdictional concerns. The Justice also considered the necessity of the video link to ensure the parties could participate effectively in the proceedings. The court determined that the pre-trial application should proceed as scheduled, with appropriate directions given to the parties to ensure the case could be managed effectively. The decision was communicated clearly to both parties, with specific instructions on the next steps and any procedural requirements.

The final orders of the court included the approval of the pre-trial application to proceed as scheduled, with the directions provided ensuring that both parties were aware of their obligations moving forward. The court's decision aimed to facilitate a fair and efficient resolution of the underlying dispute.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established