Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Thursday, 29 August 2013

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR THURSDAY, 29 AUGUST 2013

HOBART
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m.
For Decision
Tu Ai Lin

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:15 a.m.
For Directions Hearing
MDM
SWDM

3:30 p.m.
For Sentence via video link to Court 1, Launceston
Nicholas Alan James Lawton

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Civil Jurisdiction
11.00 a.m.
In Court as in Chambers
For Judgment
Gary John Coad
v
Brian Leonard Dimmick

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Wood by video-link from the Supreme Court, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Criminal Jurisdiction
3.30pm For Sentence
Nicholas Alan James Lawton

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 Supreme Court of Tasmania's law lists for Thursday, 29 August 2013, included several cases. Among them, Tu Ai Lin was scheduled for a decision at 2:15 p.m. in Court 8, located at Salamanca Place, Hobart, before Justice Tennent. Another case, MDM SWDM, was set for a directions hearing at 9:15 a.m. in Court 7, also at Salamanca Place, Hobart, before Justice Wood. Nicholas Alan James Lawton had a sentencing hearing scheduled for 3:30 p.m. via video link to Court 1 in Launceston. Lastly, Gary John Coadv Brian Leonard Dimmick was scheduled for judgment at 11:00 a.m. in Court 1 at Salamanca Place, Hobart, before Justice Porter.

The legal issues in these cases likely involved a range of criminal and civil matters. For Tu Ai Lin, the court would have needed to decide on the outcome of the criminal proceedings based on the evidence and arguments presented. MDM SWDM's directions hearing would have been an opportunity to outline the procedural steps for the case moving forward. Nicholas Alan James Lawton's sentencing hearing would have required the court to determine an appropriate penalty based on the facts and the law. In the case of Gary John Coadv Brian Leonard Dimmick, the court would have had to render a judgment on the civil matter presented.

Justice Tennent, in the case of Tu Ai Lin, would have considered the evidence, arguments, and relevant legal principles to make a decision. For MDM SWDM, Justice Wood would have outlined the next steps in the case, ensuring that both parties were aware of the procedural requirements. For Nicholas Alan James Lawton, Justice Porter would have assessed the circumstances of the crime and any mitigating or aggravating factors before passing sentence. In the civil case, Justice Porter would have examined the evidence and applied the appropriate legal standards to make a judgment.

The final orders would have been made by the respective justices after considering all the evidence and arguments. The court would have provided detailed reasons for its decisions, ensuring that the outcomes were legally sound and just.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established