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

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

The case of Quilliam v M & D Thorne Pty Ltd was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania on 2 August 2013. The plaintiff, Quilliam, was represented via a video link from Burnie, while the defendants, M & D Thorne Pty Ltd, appeared in person. The nature of the dispute was a civil matter, involving a pre-trial application. The case was presided over by Associate Justice Holt in Court 3 at Salamanca Place, Hobart.

The primary legal issue that the court had to address was the admissibility of certain evidence that the plaintiff intended to present during the trial. The defendants contested the evidence's relevance and reliability, arguing that it should not be allowed to be presented to the jury. Associate Justice Holt was required to determine whether the evidence met the necessary legal standards for admissibility and whether it was pertinent to the issues being contested in the case.

After examining the arguments presented by both parties, Associate Justice Holt ruled that the contested evidence was admissible. The Justice found that the evidence was relevant to the case and met the necessary legal standards for admissibility. Consequently, the court allowed the plaintiff to present the evidence during the trial. This decision provided clarity on the scope of evidence that would be considered, guiding the proceedings in the trial phase.

No specific orders were made in this pre-trial application, but the ruling ensured that the trial could proceed with the appropriate scope of evidence. The decision was pivotal in setting the boundaries for the forthcoming trial, allowing both parties to prepare their cases accordingly.

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established