Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Friday, 2 May 2014

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR FRIDAY, 2 MAY 2014

HOBART

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:15 a.m.
For Trial
Stephen Roy Standage
(Part-Heard)

Civil Jurisdiction
2:00 p.m.
In Court as In Chambers
For mention
Chambers Matter

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Civil Jurisdiction
4:00 p.m.
For Decision (via video link to Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston)
Peter Joachim Kossmann
v
Resources Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal & Anor

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Civil Jurisdiction
4:00 p.m.
For Bail Application
Haralambos Tymbas

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

10:30 a.m.
For Mention
Swanton
v
Resource Management & Planning Tribunal

Swanton
v
Glenorchy City Council & Ray Taylor Investments Pty Ltd

12:00 p.m.
Discovery
Bennett
v
Iles

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice Pearce
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Trial
Luke Anthony Shaw

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice Wood
Civil Jurisdiction
4:00pm For Decision (via video-link from Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart)
Peter Joachim Kossmann v Resources Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal & Anor.

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:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Peter Joachim Kossmann v Resources Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal and Anor was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The appellant, Mr Kossmann, was seeking to overturn a decision made by the Resources Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal regarding a planning permit for his property. The Tribunal had rejected his appeal, leading to this legal challenge.

The court was required to determine whether the Tribunal's decision was lawful, whether it was based on relevant and sufficient evidence, and if the Tribunal had applied the correct legal principles. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the decision was unreasonable in the context of the relevant planning laws and policies.

Justice Wood, after reviewing the evidence and submissions from both parties, found that the Tribunal's decision was well-reasoned and based on a thorough examination of the relevant planning laws and policies. The court was satisfied that the Tribunal had considered all relevant factors and had not made any errors in its decision-making process. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal's decision was upheld.

No further orders were made by the court.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established