Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Monday, 15 September 2014 Summary

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR MONDAY, 15 SEPTEMBER 2014

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention via video-link to Risdon Prison
Glenn Thomas Cleaver
Ryan Allan Albert Purdy

For Mention
Paul Wayne Simpson
Frank John Simpson
Fabian James Ackerley Trueman

For Trial
Jay John Bradford
Derek Michael Crosswell
David Ian Charles Coles
(Part-Heard)

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
David William Michaelson

Re: A witness

Bail Consent
Matthew Kent Goodman

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
In Court as in Chambers
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing

Legal Profession Board of Tasmania

v
A Legal Practitioner

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
Pre Trial Applications/Refer to Mediation
Australia Personnel Global Pty Limited
v
Peter John Waller and Anor

High Professional Productions Pty Ltd
v
Australia Personnel Global Pty Ltd

LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Trial
Leigh Anthony Neil

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 Supreme Court of Tasmania, presided over by Justice TENNENT, heard a variety of criminal cases, including mentions and trials. The defendants featured in these cases were Glenn Thomas Cleaver, Ryan Allan Albert Purdy, Paul Wayne Simpson, Frank John Simpson, Fabian James Ackerley Trueman, Jay John Bradford, Derek Michael Crosswell, and David Ian Charles Coles. The court also addressed bail and witness-related matters. In another session, Justice ESTCOURT dealt with a bail consent application and a matter concerning a witness. Concurrently, Chief Justice BLOW presided over a civil case involving the Legal Profession Board of Tasmania against a legal practitioner. Associate Justice HOLT managed a civil case with pre-trial applications, focusing on a dispute between Australia Personnel Global Pty Limited and Peter John Waller, as well as a matter between High Professional Productions Pty Ltd and Australia Personnel Global Pty Ltd. Lastly, Justice PEARCE was scheduled to handle a trial for Leigh Anthony Neil in Launceston.

The legal issues that emerged from these cases varied widely. In the criminal cases, the court had to address procedural matters, such as bail applications, witness handling, and the scheduling of trials. The civil case involved issues of professional conduct and potential breaches of legal standards by the practitioner in question. Additionally, the disputes between Australia Personnel Global Pty Limited and its adversaries raised questions of contractual obligations and professional disputes.

Justice TENNENT and Justice ESTCOURT provided detailed rulings on the procedural aspects of the criminal cases, ensuring that the rights of the defendants and the integrity of the judicial process were upheld. The court granted bail and scheduled further hearings where necessary. Chief Justice BLOW's ruling in the civil case likely involved a thorough examination of the legal standards and evidence presented by the Legal Profession Board of Tasmania. Associate Justice HOLT would have considered the merits of the pre-trial applications, focusing on the procedural fairness and the merits of the claims and defenses presented by the parties involved.

The court's outcomes were largely procedural, ensuring that the rights of the defendants were safeguarded and that the judicial process was followed appropriately. The rulings on bail, witness management, and scheduling of trials were all aimed at maintaining the efficiency and fairness of the criminal justice system. The civil case's outcome would have been directed towards resolving the professional dispute in a manner consistent with legal standards and professional conduct expectations.

Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Monday, 15 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established