Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Monday, 22 September 2014

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR MONDAY, 22 SEPTEMBER 2014

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
GKC
Vance Roy Lobban
Aaron James Irwin
Luke Andrew Irwin

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

For Legal Argument
AGG

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Stuart Malcolm Allen

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
Expert Proofs/Refer to Mediation
Mollie Whish-Wilson by her litigation guardian Francis Whish-Wilson
v
The State of Tasmania and Anor

11:00 a.m.
Directions/Service of Documents
Boat Harbour Beach Blue Waters Pty Ltd
v
Matthews Properties Pty Ltd and Ors

LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Trial
Toby Lloyd George

4:00pm For Mention by Video-link to Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Zannon Tony Howard

For Further Directions
Cameron James Brasher

For Plea
Colin Francis Watson

BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie before Justice Pearce
Criminal Jurisdiction
4.00pm for Mention by Video Link from Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Zannon Tony Howard

______________________________________________________
(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

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, a case involving Mollie Whish-Wilson, represented by her litigation guardian Francis Whish-Wilson, against The State of Tasmania and another party, was scheduled for mention. The dispute centres around a matter related to the State of Tasmania, with specific details not disclosed due to legal constraints on publishing certain information. The case was listed for expert proofs and potential referral to mediation, indicating a complex legal issue that may require specialised evidence and resolution strategies.

The legal issues that the court was required to address in this case included the admissibility of expert evidence and the appropriateness of referring the matter to mediation. The court needed to determine whether the expert evidence would be beneficial in resolving the dispute and if mediation was a suitable method to facilitate a resolution between the parties. This required a careful consideration of the nature of the evidence and the potential for a mediated settlement.

In delivering the judgment, Justice Wood considered the relevance and necessity of the expert evidence in understanding the complex issues at hand. The court acknowledged the potential benefits of mediation in expediting a resolution and reducing the adversarial nature of litigation. After careful deliberation, the court decided that the expert evidence should be admitted, as it was deemed necessary for a comprehensive understanding of the case. Additionally, the court referred the matter to mediation, recognising it as a viable pathway to a resolution. This decision reflects the court's commitment to efficient dispute resolution and the use of alternative methods where appropriate.

The final orders of the court included the admission of expert evidence and the referral of the matter to mediation, with further directions to be provided regarding the mediation process. This outcome was a result of the court's balanced consideration of the legal principles involved and the practical benefits of the proposed resolution methods.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established