Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Monday, 1 October 2012

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR MONDAY, 1 OCTOBER 2012

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice EVANS
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.

For Mention

Hamish John Wood

Kellie Anne Kingston

Fabian Shane Graham

For Application

Stephen Roy Standage

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.

For Mention

Luke David Buck

Jason Charles Dare

For Trial

Anton Christofer Colev

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing via video link to Burnie
Cindy-Lee Mclean
v
Dean Bruce Hays

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
For Hearing
Haroon& Anor
v
Lindisfarne (Health) Pharmacy Pty Ltd & Ors

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Chief Justice Crawford

Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00am For Mention
AGA

For Plea
David James Oakley
Cornelius John Richard Gleeson

4.15 For Sentence by video-link to Supreme Court, Hobart
Andrew Robert Muirhead

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street Burnie before Justice Porter
Criminal Jurisdiction

10.00 a.m.
For Mention
JBS
Darren James Stephens

For Trial
Thomas Rundle Mead

2.15 p.m.
For Mention
Craig Anthony Otto

Before the Honourable Justice Blow
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.

For Hearing via video link to Burnie
Cindy-Lee Mclean v Dean Bruce Hays

_______________________________________________________

(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 of Cindy-Lee McLean v Dean Bruce Hays was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania's Civil Division before Associate Justice Holt. The nature of the dispute involved a claim by the plaintiff, Cindy-Lee McLean, against the defendant, Dean Bruce Hays. The specifics of the claim were not detailed in the court listing but generally pertained to a civil matter, potentially involving contractual, tortious, or other civil obligations.

The legal issues the court was required to decide were not explicitly stated in the court listing. However, given the context of a civil hearing, the court likely needed to interpret the relevant laws applicable to the dispute, assess the evidence presented by both parties, and make a determination based on the applicable legal principles. This could include issues such as the validity of a contract, the breach of a duty, or the assessment of damages.

The court's reasoning and outcome were not detailed in the court listing. Associate Justice Holt would have reviewed the case materials, heard arguments from both parties, and applied relevant legal principles to arrive at a decision. The outcome of the hearing would be communicated through a written judgment or orders that would detail the court's findings and any relief granted or directives issued.

If further information on the final orders was provided, it would have detailed the specific relief or directives given by the court, such as monetary compensation, injunctions, or other remedies appropriate to the case.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established