Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Monday, 21 September 2015

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR MONDAY, 21 SEPTEMBER 2015

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Trial

Daniel John Oakley
(Part Heard)

10:00 a.m.
For Mention via Video-Link
Darrel George Harington
Stephen John Gleeson

For Mention
KR
Hayden Charles Bannister
Tanya Maree Silva

For Bail Consent
SJB

2:15 p.m.
In Court as In Chambers
For Bail Application
Ashton Brian Bresnehan

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT

Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Bail Consent
Angela Maree Leahy
Sally Karen Steers

For Mention
Samuel Alfred Watterson

For Trial
Brodie Leigh Price
(Part Heard)

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
10:15 a.m.
For Mention
Tarkine National Coalition Inc.
v
Paul Harriss MHA, Minister for Resources

10:30 a.m.
For Trial

Dale John Hendrex by his Litigation Guardian Marguerite Hendrex
v
Matthew Keating and Lisa Keating
(part-heard)

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Civil Jurisdiction
4:00pm
For Motion to Review via video link from Launceston
Gregory Charles Williams v Sergeant Gary Lusted

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisidiction
10:00 a.m.
Injunction
Megavar Pty Ltd v Francisco Pontes

LAUNCESTON

COURT 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice WOOD

Criminal Jurisdiction

10.00am For Mention
Christina Vernessa Watson
Linda Lee Jones
Tiffany Louise Shaw
Alexandra Rose Lockwood

To Follow For Trial
Josh Daniel Wilson

COURT 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00am For Mention
Ashley John Bowley

To Follow For Trial (Part-Heard)
Lokendra Singh

Civil Jurisdiction
4:00pm For Motion to Review via video link to Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Gregory Charles Williams v Sergeant Gary Lusted

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

On Monday, 21 September 2015, several cases were listed for hearing across various courts in Tasmania. In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Criminal Jurisdiction Court 7, several defendants had their matters heard, including Daniel John Oakley, Darrel George Harington, Stephen John Gleeson, Hayden Charles Bannister, Tanya Maree Silva, and Ashton Brian Bresnehan. The nature of these hearings varied from bail applications to consent trials and mentions. The Chief Justice Blow presided over civil jurisdiction cases including a mention for Tarkine National Coalition Inc. v Paul Harriss MHA, Minister for Resources, and a part-heard trial for Dale John Hendrex by his Litigation Guardian Marguerite Hendrex v Matthew Keating and Lisa Keating. Justice Pearce handled civil jurisdiction cases in Court 2, including a motion to review a case via video link from Launceston.

The legal issues in these cases included the granting of bail, consent to trials, and the review of decisions made in lower courts. For instance, in the case of Ashton Brian Bresnehan, the court had to determine whether to grant him bail. In the case of Tarkine National Coalition Inc. v Paul Harriss MHA, Minister for Resources, the court had to consider the merits of the coalition's application for review of a decision made by the Minister for Resources. The court also had to decide whether to grant an injunction in the case of Megavar Pty Ltd v Francisco Pontes.

The reasoning and outcomes of these cases varied, depending on the specific circumstances of each case. In the case of Ashton Brian Bresnehan, the court granted his application for bail. In the case of Tarkine National Coalition Inc. v Paul Harriss MHA, Minister for Resources, the court dismissed the coalition's application for review. The court also granted an injunction in the case of Megavar Pty Ltd v Francisco Pontes, preventing the defendant from engaging in certain activities that would infringe on the plaintiff's intellectual property rights.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established