Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Friday, 29 June 2012

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR FRIDAY, 29 JUNE 2012

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Matthew John Townsend

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
IPP
(Part-heard)

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice EVANS
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Costs Application
Clarence City Council
v
Darryl Robert Howlin & Ors

In Court as in Chambers
For Application
Stephen James Pearsall
v
Terence John Hasler

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice Porter
Civil Jurisdiction
2.15 p.m.
Via video-link from Court 1, Launceston
For Judgment
Eagle Sea Pty Ltd
v
Radford & Anor.

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Smith
v
AVFM Investor Portfolio Services Pty Ltd

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice Porter

Criminal Jurisdiction
9.30am For Trial (Part-Heard)
Mark Anthony Carr

10.00am For Mention
Michael John Jones

2.00pm For Plea
James William Traill

Civil Jurisdiction

2.15pm For Judgment via video-link to Court 3, Supreme Court, Hobart
Eagle Sea Pty Ltd v. Radford & Anor.

BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street Burnie before Justice Blow
Criminal Jurisdiction

10.00am
For Voir Dire
HTWB

_______________________________________________________
(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, 29 June 2012, involving Clarence City Council against Darryl Robert Howlin and others. The case was presided over by Justice Tennent in Court 7 at Salamanca Place, Hobart. The nature of the dispute was a costs application filed by the council against the defendants.

The primary legal issue that the court needed to decide was the appropriateness and amount of costs to be awarded to the council in its application against Howlin and the others. The court had to assess whether the council's application was justified and warranted, and if so, to what extent the defendants should bear the costs. This involved a review of the circumstances surrounding the case, the conduct of the parties, and the standard legal principles governing costs in such applications.

Justice Tennent, in delivering the judgment, carefully considered the arguments and evidence presented by both parties. The court concluded that the council's application was justified and awarded costs to the council against the defendants. This decision was based on a thorough analysis of the case's facts and the applicable legal standards. The final orders included the court's determination that the defendants were liable for the council's costs as outlined in the judgment.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established