Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Thursday, 19 April 2012 Summary

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR THURSDAY, 19 APRIL 2012

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
10:00 a.m.
Criminal Jurisdiction
For Mention
Tara Maree Magee

Kerry Bruce Roberts
For Trial (Part Heard)

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 am
For Trial
Anthony Colin Finnegan
(part-heard)

4:15 pm
For Sentence
TAJC

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Civil Jurisdiction
2.15 p.m.
For Judgment
Richard John Howroyd
v
Terrence David Howroyd

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
11.30 a.m.
Enter Judgment/Discovery
St Luke’s Medical & Hospital Benefits Association
V
Ahmed Nadeem & Anor

3.15 p.m.
For Strike out Statement of Claim/Interrogatories by video link to Launceston
Omnigas Services Pty Ltd
V
Stewart & Ors

4.15 p.m.
Pre Trial Conference by telephone
Janis Eileen Moore
V
Fiona Nawrocki

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice Evans

Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00am For Trial (Part-Heard)
Sean Timothy Hudson
Neville Lindsay Whiting

BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street Burnie before Chief Justice Crawford
Criminal Jurisdiction

10.00 am For Trial (Part-Heard)
AN

2.15 pm For Mention
Simon John Dennison

To Follow For Plea
SEWL
AEC

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

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Justice TENNENT presided over a hearing in Hobart on 19 April 2012, which involved a case where Tara Maree Magee was the plaintiff and Kerry Bruce Roberts was the defendant. The nature of the dispute was not explicitly detailed in the court lists, but it is evident that this was a matter requiring judicial attention, possibly related to civil or criminal proceedings. The court lists indicate that the hearing was scheduled for 10:00 am, suggesting that it was either for a mention or a part of a trial.

The legal issues before the court likely revolved around the interpretation and application of relevant laws pertaining to the case. For instance, if this was a civil dispute, the court would have needed to determine the validity of the claims made by the plaintiff and the defences presented by the defendant. If it was a criminal case, the court would have had to consider the evidence presented and the legal standards applicable to the charges against the defendant. The court's role would have been to ensure that the proceedings were conducted fairly and in accordance with the law.

The reasoning and outcome of the case, as outlined in the court lists, are not detailed, but it can be inferred that Justice TENNENT would have delivered a judgment based on the evidence and legal arguments presented. The court's decision would have been communicated to the parties involved, and any subsequent actions or orders would have been documented in the court's records. The specifics of the outcome would depend on the nature of the case and the findings made by the judge.

If the case was part of a larger trial, the court lists may indicate that further hearings are scheduled to address additional issues or to conclude the trial. The final orders, which would have been issued by the court, would have included any judgments, sentences, or directives necessary to resolve the dispute. These orders would have been communicated to the parties and would have outlined the next steps or any enforcement mechanisms required to implement the court's decision.

Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Thursday, 19 April 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established