Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Monday, 25 June 2012

Case [2012] TASSCCourtlist 113


SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR MONDAY, 25 JUNE 2012

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
For Directions Hearing
Manjing Moses Mading
Scott Brian Enslow
Peter Macuei Bona
Carol Anne Devine
Luke David Buck
Brenton James Marcel Le Faucheur
Luke Wayne Leslie Shearing
Shane Robert Kelty

For Bail Consent
Matthew John Townsend

For Trial
Kurt Stanley James
Aaron James Crosswell
(Part-Heard)

Civil Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
Via Video Link to Burnie
Application for Costs
Mark Alexander Evans
v
Reginald Dawson

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
For Trial
IPP

Witness on Final Notice
CDB

For Mention
Anthony Wayne Emery
Cindy May Devine
Donna Lee Dennison

For Trial
Shane John Hammond
(Part-Heard)

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice Evans
Civil Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
For Application
Geoffrey Douglas Summers
v
The National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Limited

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil jurisdiction
12.00 p.m.
Possession
Mystate Financial Limited
V
Alexander Van Der Kooij & Anor

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice Porter  

Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00am For Mention
Bevan John Gleeson
Thomas James Aliano
Christopher Charles Johnson

For Mention By Video-Link
Tyler John Mayne
Matthew Wayne Leslie

For Trial
Mark Anthony Carr

4.15pm For Sentence
Justin Matthew Brimfield

BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street Burnie before Justice Blow
Criminal Jurisdiction
11:00 am
For Mention
DSI

Cyrus Francis Halfacre
Guthrie Gene Halfacre

For Voire Dire
HTWB

For Bail Consent
Brad Geoffrey Arnold

Before Justice TENNENT
Civil Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m. via video link to Burnie Supreme Court
For Application for Costs
Mark Alexander Evans
v
Reginald Dawson

_______________________________________________________
(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, 25 June 2012 [2012] TASSCCourtlist 113
Case
[2012] TASSCCourtlist 113
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Tasmania held various hearings across its Hobart, Launceston, and Burnie locations on Monday, 25 June 2012. In Hobart, Justice Tennent presided over a criminal directions hearing involving multiple defendants including Manjing Moses Mading and Scott Brian Enslow. Another case before Justice Tennent was a civil application for costs by Mark Alexander Evans against Reginald Dawson, conducted via video link to Burnie. Justice Wood handled a criminal trial involving Shane John Hammond, which was part-heard. Associate Justice Holt presided over a civil matter regarding possession between Mystate Financial Limited and Alexander Van Der Kooij & Anor in Hobart. In Launceston, Justice Porter managed a criminal mention concerning Mark Anthony Carr. Finally, in Burnie, Justice Blow handled criminal mentions and a voire dire hearing for HTWB, and Justice Tennent presided over the civil application for costs via video link.

The primary legal issues that the court needed to decide involved the procedural aspects of the criminal cases, including bail, directions, and trials. The civil cases raised questions about costs and possession. The court's reasoning would have been based on the specific circumstances of each case, including the evidence presented, the legal arguments from the parties, and relevant statutory provisions. The outcome of each case would depend on these factors, with the court making decisions based on the merits of the arguments and the application of the law.

The court issued directions for the criminal cases, heard the civil application for costs, and managed the part-heard criminal trial. In the civil case regarding possession, the court would have considered the evidence and arguments presented by both parties before making a decision. The court's final orders would have been communicated to the parties involved, providing clarity on the next steps in each case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.