Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Monday, 3 June 2013

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR MONDAY, 3 JUNE 2013

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice EVANS
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
For Mention
Robert Francis Langford

Jake James Smith
Christopher Harold Denny
Samuel Spencer Madden

For Trial
Shelly Anne Percy

(Part-Heard)

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
9.45 a.m.
For Sentence
Peter Dennis Flynn

10.00 a.m.
For Mention
Garry Scott Sullivan
Ronald Albert Moore
Robert George Greig

For Trial
Gary Robert Greig

4.15 p.m.
For Plea
Giulio White

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
4.15 p.m.
For Sentence
Shaun Michael Kelly

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
Strike Out Statement of Claim
Colledge & Anor
v
Derwent Park Developments Pty Ltd & Ors

4.00 p.m.
Directions Hearing by telephone
State of Tasmania
v
Croft

LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Chief Justice Blow
Criminal Jurisdiction
In Court
2.15pm For Mention
DRW
Christopher John Humphreys

Civil Jurisdiction
In Court
For Decision and Possible Further Hearing
Kurt Von Stalheim v The Anti Discrimination Tribunal and Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu

Criminal Jurisdiction
In Court
4.00pm For Sentence
Brett Julian Robinson-Stacey

BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie before Justice Estcourt
10.00 a.m.
Criminal Jurisdiction
In Court
For Bail Consent
Shane Robert Smith

Civil Jurisdiction
In Court
For Hearing
Red Group Holdings Pty Ltd
v
RC & MM Wright Transport Pty Ltd

______________________________________________________
(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 held a hearing on the 3rd of June, 2013, which included a range of criminal and civil cases. The Court was presided over by various justices and associate justices. Among the criminal cases, Robert Francis Langford, Jake James Smith, Christopher Harold Denny, Samuel Spencer Madden, Shelly Anne Percy, Peter Dennis Flynn, Garry Scott Sullivan, Ronald Albert Moore, Robert George Greig, Giulio White, and Shaun Michael Kelly were listed for various mentions, trials, and sentencing. In the civil division, the court was set to consider a strike-out statement of claim filed by Colledge & Anor against Derwent Park Developments Pty Ltd & Ors, as well as a directions hearing by telephone in the case of State of Tasmania v Croft. Further hearings were also scheduled for Kurt Von Stalheim v The Anti Discrimination Tribunal and Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu and a bail consent application by Shane Robert Smith. Additionally, a hearing was listed for Red Group Holdings Pty Ltd v RC & MM Wright Transport Pty Ltd.

The legal issues before the court spanned a variety of matters including criminal charges, sentencing, bail, and civil disputes. In the criminal cases, the court was tasked with addressing issues such as the admissibility of evidence, the appropriate sentence for the accused, and the granting of bail. The civil cases involved the determination of whether certain claims should be struck out and the direction of proceedings in ongoing litigation. The court's decisions in these matters would set important precedents and provide resolution for the parties involved.

The court's reasoning and outcomes were not detailed in the excerpt provided, but it can be expected that the justices would have considered the evidence presented, applicable laws, and legal principles to arrive at their decisions. For instance, in criminal cases, the court would have assessed the guilt or innocence of the accused and determined the appropriate sentence, taking into account factors such as the severity of the crime, the circumstances, and the defendant's background. In civil cases, the court would have evaluated the merits of the claims and decided whether to proceed with the litigation or strike out the claims based on the evidence and legal arguments presented.

No final orders were mentioned in the excerpt, but the court's decisions would have provided closure to the cases and established the legal outcomes for the parties involved. The outcomes would have been communicated to the parties and their legal representatives, and any necessary steps for enforcement or further appeal would have been outlined.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established