Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Monday, 4 June 2012

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR MONDAY, 4 JUNE 2012

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
In Court as in Chambers
For Bail Variation
Tu Ai Lin

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice Porter
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Judgment
Joshua Andrew Potts
v
Darren Stephen Frost

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
Directions Hearing
Parker
V
Parker

11.00 a.m.
Enter Judgment
Bisset
V
Fergus Tappi Pty Ltd & Anor

LAUNCESTON
No list for Launceston.

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:

The Supreme Court of Tasmania's law list for Monday, 4 June 2012, featured several cases in both civil and criminal jurisdictions. In Court 7, Justice Tennent was scheduled to hear a matter concerning bail variation for Tu Ai Lin. In Court 2, Justice Porter was to hear a judgment in the case of Joshua Andrew Potts versus Darren Stephen Frost. In Court 3, Associate Justice Holt was to conduct a directions hearing in the case of Parker versus Parker, and subsequently enter judgment in the case of Bisset versus Fergus Tappi Pty Ltd and another respondent. There were no scheduled cases for Launceston or Burnie.

The legal issues in the case of Joshua Andrew Potts v Darren Stephen Frost likely revolved around the claims and defenses presented by each party, requiring the court to interpret relevant laws and evidence to reach a verdict. The bail variation matter for Tu Ai Lin would have involved considerations of the current bail conditions and whether any changes were necessary based on new information or circumstances. In the Parker v Parker directions hearing, the court would have addressed procedural matters to ensure the case proceeded fairly and efficiently. The judgment in Bisset v Fergus Tappi Pty Ltd and Anor would have necessitated the court to examine the merits of the claim and apply appropriate legal principles to deliver a final decision.

Justice Porter, hearing the case of Joshua Andrew Potts v Darren Stephen Frost, would have considered the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, applying relevant statutes and case law to determine the outcome. The court would have assessed the credibility and weight of the evidence and applied the appropriate legal standards to arrive at a decision. The final orders would have been recorded, providing a resolution to the dispute between the parties. The directions hearing in Parker v Parker would have involved the court outlining the next steps in the proceedings, ensuring both parties understood their obligations and the expected timeline for the case. The court's judgment in Bisset v Fergus Tappi Pty Ltd and Anor would have been based on a thorough analysis of the evidence and applicable legal principles, resulting in a written decision that addressed the claims made by the plaintiff and the defenses presented by the defendants.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established