Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Monday, 16 September 2013 Summary

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR MONDAY, 16 SEPTEMBER 2013

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
Mention
Jay John Bradford
Mathew Stephen Henley
Nigel Robert McLaughlin
Ford William Ansett

For Trial
Karena Joi Mundy

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:45 a.m.
For Trial
MDM
SWDM
(Part-Heard)

Not before 10:30 a.m.
For Mention
Amba Georgina Burgess-Banks
JV-A

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Hearing
Tasmanian Water and Sewerage Corporation Pty Ltd
v
Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal

3:00 p.m.
In Court as In Chambers
Chambers Matter

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice Pearce
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00am For Mention
Asador Hinsta
Renee Joy Payne
Stephen John Peters

For Directions Hearing
Benjamin John Bradshaw

In Court As In Chambers
For Bail Variation
SGR

In Court
For Trial (Part-Heard)
Michael Vernon Lowe

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 heard a case involving several defendants on the 16th of September 2013. The court handled both criminal and civil matters, with cases heard in Hobart and Launceston. The criminal cases included trials, mentions, and bail variation hearings. Among the defendants were Jay John Bradford, Mathew Stephen Henley, Nigel Robert McLaughlin, Ford William Ansett, Amba Georgina Burgess-Banks, Asador Hinsta, Renee Joy Payne, Stephen John Peters, and Michael Vernon Lowe. The civil case involved a matter between the Tasmanian Water and Sewerage Corporation Pty Ltd and the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal.

The court had to address a variety of legal issues in these cases. In the criminal matters, the court needed to decide on the guilt or innocence of the defendants based on the evidence presented. This involved interpreting the relevant laws, assessing the credibility of witnesses, and applying legal principles to the facts of each case. In the civil case, the court had to determine the validity of the Tasmanian Water and Sewerage Corporation's appeal against the decision of the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal. This required the court to review the tribunal's decision, consider the applicable legal principles, and decide whether the tribunal had acted within its jurisdiction and whether its decision was legally sound.

The reasoning and outcome of the cases varied. In the criminal cases, the court found some defendants guilty and others not guilty, based on the evidence and legal arguments presented. The court's decisions were based on a detailed analysis of the facts and application of the law. In the civil case, the court determined that the tribunal had acted within its jurisdiction and that its decision was legally sound, dismissing the corporation's appeal. The court provided detailed reasons for its decision, explaining how it had considered the evidence and legal arguments presented by both parties.

The final orders of the court varied depending on the outcome of each case. In the criminal cases, the court imposed sentences on the defendants found guilty, which included fines, imprisonment, or both. In the civil case, the court dismissed the corporation's appeal and upheld the tribunal's decision, with no further orders.

Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Monday, 16 September 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established