SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR FRIDAY, 8 APRIL 2016
HOBART
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the FULL COURT
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Michael Pervan, Acting Secretary Department of Health and Human Services
v
The Honourable Chief Justice Alan Blow
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
10:00 a.m.
Civil Jurisdiction
For Application
Senior Constable Scott Wilkie
v
Christian Peter Cohen
To Follow
Criminal Jurisdiction
In Court as in Chambers
For Bail Variation
Michelle Lee Arnott
In Court
For Application to Discharge Dangerous Criminal Declaration via video link to Court 1, Supreme Court, Burnie
Winston Fairbrother
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
In Court as in Chambers
10:00 a.m.
For Application to Vary Bail via video link to Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Jason Robert Burns
In Court as in Chambers
10:30 a.m.
For Bail Application
Jack William Court
In Court
2:00 p.m.
For Remand via video link to Launceston Remand Centre
Chad Richard Talbott
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
In Court as in Chambers
For Application to Vary Bail via video link from Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Jason Robert Burns
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie before Chief Justice Blow
10:00 a.m.
Criminal Jurisdiction
In Court
For Application to Discharge Dangerous Criminal Declaration via video link to Court 7, Supreme Court, Hobart
Winston Fairbrother
______________________________________________________
(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:
- AGLC
- Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Friday, 8 April 2016 [2016] TASSCCourtlist 68
- Case
- [2016] TASSCCourtlist 68
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues that the court was required to decide were not explicitly stated in the document. However, given that the case was heard under civil jurisdiction, it is likely that the court had to consider issues related to the Health and Human Services department, such as administrative law, public health, or health care policy. The court was also required to determine the appropriate outcome for the case based on the evidence and arguments presented.
The court's reasoning and outcome were not specified in the document. However, given that the case was heard by Chief Justice Blow, it is likely that the court considered the relevant legal principles and precedents before reaching a decision. The outcome of the case may have been influenced by factors such as the strength of the arguments presented, the quality of the evidence, and the applicable legal standards.
If the case was decided in favour of the Acting Secretary, the court may have ordered the respondent to take certain actions or refrain from taking certain actions related to the Health and Human Services department. Alternatively, if the case was decided in favour of the respondent, the court may have ordered the Acting Secretary to take certain actions or refrain from taking certain actions. The final orders of the court would have been communicated to the parties involved in the case.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.