Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Friday, 20 June 2014 Summary

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR FRIDAY, 20 JUNE 2014

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

10:00 a.m.
Directions Hearing
Gardner and Anor
v
Gardner and Anor

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice Pearce
Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00am For Trial (Part-Heard)
Stephen John Jackman

For Remand via Video Link
Cameron Brasher

To Follow For Directions
Jaydon Kyal Grimm
Jake Wells

To Follow For Bail Consent
Samantha Ashley Prewer

To Follow For Bail Variation
Toby Lloyd George

To Follow For Plea
Justin Joseph Ewell
Nathan John Jones
Darren Brian Joseph Wise

To Follow For Bail Application
Nathan Henry John Riley
Leigh Anthony Neil

BURNIE
No 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 involved Gardner and another party (referred to as "Anor") who appeared before the Supreme Court of Tasmania in Hobart. The nature of the dispute was not specified in the document, but it was scheduled for a miscellaneous civil business directions hearing via video link to Burnie. The court proceedings were part of the Supreme Court's civil jurisdiction, and the hearing was listed for 10:00 a.m. in Court 3, located at Salamanca Place in Hobart.

The legal issues before the court likely pertained to the procedural aspects of the case, such as the scheduling of further hearings, the management of evidence, and the determination of any preliminary matters that needed to be resolved before the case could proceed to trial or final determination. The court was required to decide on the appropriate course of action for managing the case effectively and ensuring that both parties had an opportunity to present their positions.

The court's reasoning and outcome were not detailed in the provided document, but the listing suggests that the hearing was part of the ongoing management of the case. Typically, in such directions hearings, the court would outline the next steps, set timelines for filing additional documentation, and possibly address any urgent matters that needed immediate attention. The outcome would have been communicated to the parties involved, and further hearings or trials would have been scheduled accordingly.

The final orders of the court would have been recorded in the case file and may have included directions for further evidence submissions, dates for subsequent hearings, and any other procedural requirements necessary for the case to progress. The parties would have been notified of these orders, allowing them to prepare for the next stages of the litigation process.

Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Friday, 20 June 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established