Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Thursday, 18 October 2012

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR THURSDAY, 18 OCTOBER 2012

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place
Before Chief Justice CRAWFORD
Criminal Jurisdiction
4.00 p.m.
For Mention
Kristin Callie Athena Jacobson

For Sentence via video link

CSC

DKDM

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD

Civil Jurisdiction

10.00 a.m.

In Court as in Chambers

For Hearing

Haroon & Verrocchi

Lindisfarne (Health) Pharmacy Pty Ltd

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
11.30 a.m.
Submissions
Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited
v
Bobridge

2.15 p.m.
Amend Statement of Claim
Arnott
v
Vikon Constructions Pty Ltd

3.00 p.m.
Further Submissions
Aquagenics Pty Limited
v
Tasmanian Water and Sewerage Corporation (Southern Region) Pty Limited

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:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Supreme Court of Tasmania involved two distinct matters. Firstly, the court was to address a sentencing matter concerning Kristin Callie Athena Jacobson. The second matter was a civil case between Haroon and Verrocchi against Lindisfarne (Health) Pharmacy Pty Ltd. Both matters were scheduled to be heard in separate courts and by different justices.

The legal issues in the civil case between Haroon and Verrocchi and Lindisfarne (Health) Pharmacy Pty Ltd revolved around the specifics of the dispute between the parties. The precise nature of the claim was not detailed in the provided information, but it likely involved matters of contract, negligence, or professional liability given the involvement of a pharmacy. In the other case, Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited sought to amend their statement of claim against Bobridge, potentially to correct errors or add new claims. The third matter, between Arnott and Vikon Constructions Pty Ltd, was scheduled for further submissions, indicating an ongoing dispute that required additional arguments or evidence.

The reasoning and outcome of these cases were not provided in the document, but it was noted that the court would hear submissions and potentially decide on the matters at hand. The court's role would be to interpret the applicable laws, consider the evidence and arguments presented by the parties, and make a ruling based on the merits of each case. The final orders of the court would be communicated to the parties involved and would likely include decisions on liability, damages, or other remedies as appropriate.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established