Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Friday, 8 March 2013 Summary

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR FRIDAY, 8 MARCH 2013

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice EVANS
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
For Mention via video-link
Mark Raymond Roland

For Bail Consent
Kiahl Mark Roland

In court as in Chambers
For Bail Application
Leonard William Riley

For Trial
Nathan James Carins
(Part-Heard)

4.00 p.m.
For Directions Hearing
William Eric Yabsley

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Ian Robert Cooksey
(Part Heard)

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
9.30 a.m.
For Mention
Verriece Aileen McLean

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Civil Jurisdiction
9.15 a.m.
Application by telephone
Freeman
v
Resource Management & Planning Appeal Tribunal

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Civil Jurisdiction
2.15 p.m.
For Judgment
Leiah Pty Ltd
v
State of Tasmania

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9.15 a.m.
Via video link to Burnie
Miscellaneous Civil Business

11.00 a.m.
Acquagenics Pty Limited
v
Tasmanian Water & Sewerage Corporation (Southern Region) Pty Limited
(Part-Heard)

3.00 p.m.
Amend Statement of Claim
Etter
v
State of Tasmania

LAUNCESTON

No Law List for Launceston

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 Supreme Court of Tasmania, sitting in Hobart, heard various criminal and civil matters on 8 March 2013. Among the criminal matters, there was a bail application by Leonard William Riley, and a directions hearing for William Eric Yabsley. In civil matters, there was a telephone application by Freeman against the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal, and a case involving Leiah Pty Ltd versus the State of Tasmania. Another civil case, Acquagenics Pty Limited versus Tasmanian Water and Sewerage Corporation (Southern Region) Pty Limited, was also heard, but only partially.

The legal issues that came before the court ranged from bail applications and trial directions in criminal cases, to matters of civil procedure and the interpretation of planning and resource management laws. The Freeman case, for instance, likely involved the interpretation of tribunal procedures and the grounds for judicial review of a tribunal's decision. The case of Leiah Pty Ltd versus the State of Tasmania may have involved issues of state liability, potentially touching on tort law or administrative law principles.

The reasoning of the court in these cases would have been guided by the applicable legal principles and statutes. For example, in bail applications, the court would consider the likelihood of the accused appearing at trial, the seriousness of the offence, and any other factors relevant to the risk of flight or reoffending. In civil cases, the court would have considered the specific statutory provisions governing the tribunal's decision-making process, as well as common law principles of administrative law. The court's approach would have been to ensure that the legal process was followed correctly and that justice was served according to the law.

The final orders of the court, as summarised in the law list, would have been communicated in the subsequent court filings or judgments, which are not detailed in the extract provided. These orders would have included directions for the continuation of trials, decisions on bail applications, and resolutions of the civil disputes brought before the court.

Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Friday, 8 March 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established