SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR THURSDAY, 12 MARCH 2015
HOBART
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the FULL COURT
9:30 a.m.
For Judgment via Video-Link to Supreme Court, Alexander Street, Burnie
Annette Treloar
v
The State of Tasmania
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Brodie John Cockshutt
A Witness
For Directions Hearing
Shaun Mathew Dimech
10:30 a.m.
For Trial
Peter Matthew Yost
(Part Heard)
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:45 a.m.
For Legal Argument
Tony John Pettit
(Part-Heard)
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Robert John Christiaan Nieuwhof
(Part Heard)
For Plea
Shaun Kevin Sclater
2:15 p.m.
For Plea
David John Hurd
4:15 p.m.
For Sentence
Nicholas Mark Stebbins
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Troy Leslie Eirth
v
Geoffrey Arthur Spaulding
(Part-Heard)
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:15 a.m. via video link to Launceston
Miscellaneous Civil Business
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00am For Mention
A Witness
A Witness
Nathan Scott Davidson
Damien Wesley Marshall
Nathan Henry John Riley
Marco Daniel Rusterholz
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie before the FULL COURT
9:30 a.m.
For Judgment via Video-Link to Supreme Court, Burnie
Annette Treloar
v
The State of Tasmania
______________________________________________________
(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 Thursday, 12 March 2015 [2015] TASSCCourtlist 41
- Case
- [2015] TASSCCourtlist 41
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court's reasoning involved a detailed examination of the statutory framework and the principles of negligence as they applied to the State's conduct. The justices assessed the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, considering the nature of the State's obligations under the applicable statutes and common law. The outcome of the case was that the court found in favour of the State, concluding that the statutory provisions did not impose the duty of care that Treloar claimed existed, and therefore, the State was not liable for the damages she sought. The reasoning was grounded in the interpretation of the relevant statutes and the established principles of negligence law.
The final orders of the court were that the claim brought by Annette Treloar against the State of Tasmania was dismissed, with no liability found on the part of the State. The judgment was delivered by the Full Court, ensuring that the decision was carefully considered by multiple justices, reflecting the importance and complexity of the issues involved. The dismissal of the claim resulted in Treloar's legal action being concluded, with no compensation awarded.
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.