Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Thursday, 13 August 2015 Summary

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

10.am 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:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Tasmania held a hearing in Hobart on Thursday, 13 August 2015, presided over by Chief Justice Blow. Among the cases listed were several criminal matters involving defendants Schultz, Lockley, French, and Rogers, as well as an application by Robyn Clare Pearce and bail consent applications by Brooke Hope Summers and Shannon Myree Arnold. Another criminal matter involved an application to discharge a dangerous criminal declaration by Jamie Gregory McCrossen, heard in Launceston by Justice Tennent. In civil jurisdiction, Dean Flanagan filed a case against Claremont Village Shopping Centre and others, heard in Hobart by Associate Justice Holt. Additionally, an assessment of damages case was scheduled via video link to Launceston involving Streefland Homes Pty Ltd against Land Design Pty Ltd and others. The Burnie Court had a civil hearing for Graham Maitland Marshall against the Retirement Benefits Fund Board, as well as a criminal trial involving Mark Raymond Roland.

The legal issues before the court encompassed a range of criminal and civil matters. In the criminal cases, issues included witness applications, bail consent, and the discharge of a dangerous criminal declaration. The court had to consider the evidence and arguments presented in each case to determine the appropriate legal outcomes. In the civil cases, the issues involved breaches of contractual obligations, retirement benefits, and assessment of damages in property disputes. The court had to interpret relevant laws and precedents to decide on the rights and obligations of the parties involved.

The reasoning and outcome of the court's decisions were not detailed in the provided extract, and thus, it remains unclear how each case was resolved. The court's decisions would have been based on the evidence, legal arguments, and applicable statutes and precedents. The court would have assessed the credibility of the witnesses, the merits of the legal arguments, and the facts of each case to arrive at its decisions. The outcomes would have varied depending on the specific circumstances of each case, with the court aiming to deliver justice based on the law.

No final orders were mentioned in the provided text, and thus, the specific outcomes and orders for each case remain unknown. The court would have issued orders reflecting its decisions, which may have included convictions, fines, compensation, or other legal remedies. The orders would have been tailored to the unique circumstances of each case, ensuring that the court's decisions were effectively enforced.

Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Thursday, 13 August 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established