Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Monday, 13 January 2014

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR MONDAY, 13 JANUARY 2014

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10am
In Court as in Chambers
For Bail Application
Samantha Dawn Leslie
Jason Noel Rowe

Civil Jurisdiction
2.15pm For Directions Hearing via video link to
Court 2, Supreme Court, Launceston
Kurt von Stalheim
v
Acting Inspector Mark Gordan Wright

Kurt von Stalheim
v
Sergeant Gary Lusted

Criminal Jurisdiction
For Directions Hearing via video link to
Court 2, Supreme Court, Launceston
Adrian Wayne Smillie

LAUNCESTON
Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice Estcourt by Video-Link
from Court 7, Supreme Court, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Civil Jurisdiction
In Court
2.15pm For Directions Hearing

Kurt von Stalheim v Acting Inspector Mark Gordan Wright
Kurt von Stalheim v Sergeant Gary Lusted

Criminal Jurisdiction

For Directions Hearing
Adrian Wayne Smillie

BURNIE
No 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 matter before the Supreme Court of Tasmania involved Kurt von Stalheim as the plaintiff, and Acting Inspector Mark Gordan Wright and Sergeant Gary Lusted as the defendants. The nature of the dispute is not explicitly stated in the text but is likely to be civil in nature, given the inclusion in the civil jurisdiction section of the court list. The proceedings were scheduled for a directions hearing via video link to Court 2 in Launceston. This case underscores the use of technology in modern judicial processes, allowing for efficient case management across different locations.

The legal issues before the court were not specified in the provided text, but they likely pertained to the procedural aspects of the case, such as the admissibility of evidence, the scope of the defendants' liability, or the appropriate legal standards to be applied. The court's role in this hearing would have been to provide direction on these issues, ensuring that the case proceeded in a manner consistent with legal principles and procedural fairness.

Justice Estcourt, presiding over the case via video link, focused on providing clear directions for the case's progression. The judge likely addressed the procedural matters raised by the parties, ensuring that both sides understood the next steps and the evidence that would be considered. The outcome of this hearing would have set the stage for the case's further development, including any potential trials or settlements.

No specific final orders were mentioned in the text, but it can be inferred that the court would have issued directions that would guide the subsequent stages of litigation, ensuring that the case was managed efficiently and fairly. This might include setting timelines for the exchange of evidence, scheduling further hearings, or making preliminary rulings on specific legal issues.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established