Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Tuesday, 17 February 2015

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR TUESDAY, 17 FEBRUARY 2015

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before THE FULL COURT
9:30 a.m.
For Judgment via Video-Link to Court 1, Supreme Court, Cameron Street, Launceston
West Coast Council
v
Warrick Coverdale, Valuer-General of the State of Tasmania

Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Fabian James Ackerley Trueman

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
A Witness

For Trial
Brett Nathan Webb
(Part-Heard)

4:00 p.m.
For Sentence
Shannon Patrick Pace

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Civil Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m. via video link to Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
For Decision
Stephen Ronald How
v
Brian Phillip How

Necilla Ann Barrett
v
Constable Annette Helen Wilson

10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Michael Swanton
v
Resource Management Planning Appeal Tribunal

Michael Swanton
v
Glenorchy City Council and Ray Taylor Investments Pty Ltd

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 the FULL COURT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:30am For Judgment via video-link from Court 7, Supreme Court, Salamanca Place, Hobart
West Coast Council
v
Warrick Coverdale, Valuer-General of the State of Tasmania

To Follow in Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Civil Jurisdiction
9:30am for Decision by video-link from Court 1, Supreme Court, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Stephen Ronald How
v
Brian Phillip How

Necillia Ann Barrett
v
Constable Annette Helen Wilson

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Trial
Josh Daniel Wilson

4:00pm For Bail Application
Clint Graeme Stanisz

BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie before Justice Estcourt
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
In Court
For Mention
Michael Scott Redman

For Trial (Part-Heard)
Konstandinos Argeropoulos

4:15 p.m.
In Court as in Chambers
For Bail Application
Tony John Travers

______________________________________________________
(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 of West Coast Council v Warrick Coverdale, Valuer-General of the State of Tasmania, was heard before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The dispute centred around the valuation of a parcel of land located on the West Coast of Tasmania. The Council sought to challenge the valuation process, arguing that it was flawed and had resulted in an undervaluation of the property. The Valuer-General, on the other hand, defended the assessment, asserting that the valuation was conducted in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions and was therefore valid.

The legal issues that the court was required to address included the proper interpretation and application of the relevant valuation legislation, the standard of review applicable to the decision of the Valuer-General, and whether the Council had standing to challenge the valuation in the Supreme Court. The court also had to determine whether the Council's challenge was time-barred and, if not, whether the valuation process was flawed to the extent that it warranted setting the valuation aside.

The court found that the Valuer-General's decision was not flawed and that the Council did not have standing to challenge the valuation in the Supreme Court. The court held that the Council's challenge was time-barred, and that even if it were not, the Valuer-General's decision was not so flawed as to warrant setting it aside. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to the statutory provisions governing the valuation process and noted that the Council's challenge was not supported by the evidence.

The court dismissed the Council's challenge and ordered that the costs of the proceeding be paid by the Council to the Valuer-General. The decision underscores the importance of following the correct procedures when challenging a valuation and highlights the limited grounds upon which such a challenge can be successful.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established