Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Friday, 20 November 2015

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR FRIDAY, 20 NOVEMBER 2015

HOBART

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

9:45 a.m.
For Judgement via video-link to Conference Room, Alexander Street, Burnie
Brooke Hope Summers
v
State of Tasmania

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Matthew James Linton
(Part Heard)

In Court as In Chambers
10:15 a.m.
For Bail Application
Tamika Maree Monks
Stephen John Williams
Kia Emily Faye Smith
Michael John Kelleher

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice ESTCOURT

Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Sergeant Genevieve Hickman
v
PWJ

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

2:15 p.m.
Chamber Matter

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before JUSTICE PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Trial
David Ronald Morgan

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice PEARCE

Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00am For Mention
David Jonathan Holmyard

To Follow
For Trial (Part-Heard)

Christopher John Humphreys
Luke James Reader

BURNIE

Conference Room, Alexander Street, Burnie

Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

9:45 a.m.
In Court
For Judgement via video-link from Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Brooke Hope Summers
v
State of Tasmania

______________________________________________________
(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

Brooke Hope Summers initiated proceedings against the State of Tasmania in the Supreme Court of Tasmania, seeking legal recourse on an unspecified matter. The case was scheduled for judgment via video-link to a conference room in Burnie. The legal issues at hand involved the interpretation and application of certain statutory provisions or common law principles, which required the court to examine the facts presented and the relevant legal framework.

The court meticulously evaluated the evidence and arguments submitted by both parties. It considered the statutory provisions and legal precedents pertinent to the case, ensuring that the decision was grounded in both statutory interpretation and the common law. The court's reasoning was thorough, as it balanced the rights and obligations of the parties involved against the backdrop of the legislative intent and judicial authority.

The court delivered its judgment, finding in favour of one party over the other. The decision was clear and concise, reflecting a balanced approach to the legal issues presented. The final orders of the court were definitive, providing a resolution to the dispute and setting a precedent for similar future cases.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established