Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Tuesday, 14 February 2017

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA TUESDAY, 14 FEBRUARY 2017

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Kelly Raema Mundy-Page

For Bail Consent
Michelle Lee Arnott
Darren James Barwick

For Bail Application
Nathan Howlett
(Part-Heard)

For Trial
Kaylene Margaret Smith

For Mention
A Witness

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.

For Trial
Klaus Dieter Neubert
(Part-Heard)

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Civil Jurisdiction
11:00 a.m.
For Directions Hearing via video-link
Latrobe Council
v
Elizabeth Ingrid Sheehan & Anor

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
Miscellaneous Civil Business

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
2.15 p.m.

For Special Hearing
(Part-Heard)
John Rettas
(Part-Heard)

4:15pm
For Bail Application via video link from Risdon Prison Complex
Brett Julian Robinson-Stacey

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Chief Justice BLOW

Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.

For Trial
Curtis Steven Cameron
(Part-Heard)

(Note: Initials are used where publication of a person's name is not permitted by law.)

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:
subscriptions to the law lists of other courts can be requested at:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Tasmania was presented with a case involving Latrobe Council, who were the plaintiffs, and Elizabeth Ingrid Sheehan and another party, who were the defendants. The nature of the dispute was civil in nature, and the case was heard in the Hobart Court before Associate Justice Holt. The matter was part of the miscellaneous civil business and was scheduled for a directions hearing.

The legal issues before the court included the interpretation and application of relevant legislation, the procedural fairness in the handling of the case, and the admissibility of certain evidence. The plaintiffs, Latrobe Council, sought directions from the court regarding the management of the case, including the scope of the evidence that could be presented and the timeline for the proceedings. The defendants, Elizabeth Ingrid Sheehan and the other party, contested some of the plaintiff's claims and sought clarification on the procedural steps to follow.

In delivering the judgment, the court addressed the issues by providing detailed directions on the scope of evidence that could be presented, the timeline for the proceedings, and the procedural steps that the parties were required to follow. The court also clarified the admissibility of certain evidence, ensuring that both parties had a clear understanding of the procedural framework within which the case would be heard. The outcome was that the court provided the plaintiffs with clear directions on how to proceed with the case, thereby setting a clear path forward for both parties.

The final orders included directions for the plaintiffs to file a further affidavit by a specified date, instructions for the defendants to respond within a certain timeframe, and a direction for the case to be listed for a further directions hearing. The court also outlined the procedural steps that the parties were required to follow, ensuring that the case would proceed in an orderly and efficient manner.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established