Legal Research
Cases
Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Monday, 19 November 2012

Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Monday, 19 November 2012

Case [2012] TASSCCourtlist 225

Criminal Liability

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR MONDAY, 19 NOVEMBER 2012

HOBART

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the FULL COURT
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing

Darryl Howlin

Clarence City Council

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
2.15 p.m.

For Hearing

Gavin Raymond McIntosh

(Part-Heard)

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:

Details

AGLC: Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Monday, 19 November 2012 [2012] TASSCCourtlist 225
Case: [2012] TASSCCourtlist 225
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, the case of Darryl Howlin v Clarence City Council was listed for hearing before the Full Court in Hobart on 19 November 2012. The dispute involved Darryl Howlin, who was suing the Clarence City Council. The specific nature of the legal contention was not detailed in the provided excerpt, but it is apparent that the matter required the attention of the Full Court, indicating its significance or complexity.

The court was tasked with deciding on the legal issues presented by the plaintiff, Darryl Howlin, against the Clarence City Council. Given that the case was heard by the Full Court, it is likely that the issues involved complex questions of law or significant public interest. The court's role was to interpret relevant statutes, case law, and council regulations, and to apply these to the facts of Howlin's case to determine whether the Council's actions were legally sound or if Howlin's rights were infringed upon.

The reasoning and outcome of the case were not provided in the text, but it is expected that the court would have delivered a detailed judgment addressing the legal issues, referencing pertinent statutes and case law to support its decision. The outcome could have involved the court either ruling in favour of Howlin, thereby finding against the Clarence City Council, or dismissing Howlin's claims and upholding the Council's actions. The Full Court's decision would have provided clarity on the legal standing of both parties and set a precedent for similar cases in the future.

Orders