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:
- AGLC
- Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Monday, 3 June 2013 [2013] TASSCCourtlist 94
- Case
- [2013] TASSCCourtlist 94
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.
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.