SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR THURSDAY, 13 AUGUST 2015
HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Kyle Douglas Schultz
Nathan Victor Lockley
John William French
Luke Rogers
A witness
For Application
Robyn Clare Pearce
For Bail Consent
Brooke Hope Summers
Shannon Myree Arnold
For Special Hearing
JWA
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
For Application to Discharge a Dangerous Criminal Declaration
Jamie Gregory McCrossen
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Dean Flanagan
v
Claremont Village Shopping Centre & Ors
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:15 a.m.
Via video link to Launceston
Miscellaneous Civil Business
11:00 a.m.
Via video link to Launceston
Assessment of Damages
Streefland Homes Pty Ltd v Land Design Pty Ltd & Ors
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Mention
Re A Witness
Re A Witness
Re A Witness
Re A Witness
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie before Justice Pearce
Civil Jurisdiction
For Hearing
Graham Maitland Marshall
v
Retirement Benefits Fund Board
Criminal Jurisdiction
2.00pm for Trial (Part-Heard)
Mark Raymond Roland
______________________________________________________
(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, 13 August 2015 [2015] TASSCCourtlist 170
- Case
- [2015] TASSCCourtlist 170
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court in the case between Dean Flanagan and Claremont Village Shopping Centre and others involved determining the validity of Flanagan's claims against the defendants and the extent of any damages owed. In the case involving Streefland Homes Pty Ltd and Land Design Pty Ltd, the court needed to assess the damages claimed by Streefland against Land Design.
The reasoning and outcome of the cases were not detailed in the case listing. The court would have considered the evidence presented by both parties and applied relevant legal principles to reach a decision. The final orders of the court, including any judgments or rulings, were not provided in the case listing. It is likely that further information on these cases can be obtained through legal databases or by contacting the court directly.
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.