Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Monday, 5 November 2012

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR MONDAY, 5 NOVEMBER 2012

HOBART
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
For Mention
Luke David Buck
Jason Charles Dare
Steven Kevin Jones
Hamish John Wood
Jamie Leon Hales
Shane Rodney Narracott
Valerie Susan Kiss

For Preliminary Proceedings Application
Melissa Rose Connors

For Trial
JRJ
(Part-Heard)

4.15 p.m.
For Sentence
Shannon James Duffy
Luke Ashley Woods

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.

For Directions

Matthew John Townsend

Michael John Gardner

Bradley Scott Crosswell

Bail Consent

Anthony Douglas Glass

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice EVANS
Civil Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
For Hearing

Scott Raymond Dale

Trevor Stuart Fox

4.30 p.m.

For Costs Application

West Tamar Council and Matthew Smith
v
Gary Leonard and the Integrity Commission

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
Amend Statement of Claim/Extend Time
Davis
v
Port Arthur Historic Site Management Authority

LAUNCESTON

No list for Launceston due to the Recreation Day holiday.

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:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Tasmania delivered its decision in the matter of West Tamar Council and Matthew Smith v Gary Leonard and the Integrity Commission. The plaintiffs, West Tamar Council and Matthew Smith, sought a review of the actions taken by the defendant, the Integrity Commission, in its investigation into the conduct of the defendant, Gary Leonard. The case was heard by Associate Justice Holt in the Civil Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The primary legal issues before the court involved the scope of the Integrity Commission's powers and the procedures it followed in its investigation, as well as whether the actions taken by the Commission were lawful and in accordance with relevant statutory provisions.

The court considered whether the Integrity Commission had exceeded its powers in the manner in which it conducted its investigation and whether it had adhered to the statutory requirements set out in the relevant legislation. Associate Justice Holt examined the Commission's procedures, the evidence presented, and the legal principles applicable to the case. The court also assessed whether the actions taken by the Commission were fair and reasonable under the circumstances. Ultimately, the court found that the Integrity Commission had acted within its powers and had followed proper procedures in conducting its investigation, thereby upholding the Commission's actions.

In light of the court's findings, the plaintiffs' application for review was dismissed. The court's decision was based on the conclusion that the Integrity Commission had acted lawfully and in accordance with the statutory provisions governing its investigation. The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendants' costs of the application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established