Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Monday, 15 July 2013

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR MONDAY, 15 JULY 2013

HOBART
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
11:00 a.m.
For Judgment
Paula Kate Heyward
v
Jai Moyle

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
Stay Action
McCluskey & Anor
v
Pennicott & Anor

LAUNCESTON
No list for Launceston

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

Paula Kate Heyward initiated proceedings against Jai Moyle in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The nature of the dispute is not explicitly detailed in the text, but it is likely a civil matter given the court's jurisdiction. The case was scheduled for judgment on 15 July 2013 before Chief Justice Blow in Court 1 located in Salamanca Place, Hobart. Another civil matter involving McCluskey and Anorv against Pennicott and Anor was also listed for judgment on the same day at 10 a.m. in Court 3, before Associate Justice Holt.

The legal issues before the court were not specified in the text. However, given that this is a civil jurisdiction matter, the court would have needed to consider the evidence and arguments presented by both parties to determine the outcome of the case. This could have involved interpreting contracts, assessing damages, or resolving disputes over property, among other possibilities. The court's role was to apply the relevant laws and legal principles to the facts of the case to arrive at a decision.

The Supreme Court of Tasmania, with Chief Justice Blow presiding, heard the case between Paula Kate Heyward and Jai Moyle. The reasoning and outcome of the judgment are not provided in the text. The court would have examined the evidence and arguments from both sides, applying the appropriate legal standards to reach a decision. The final orders, which would detail the court's judgment and any directions for the parties, are also not specified. However, it is likely that the court would have provided a ruling based on the merits of the case, potentially including compensation or specific performance, depending on the nature of the dispute.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established