Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Tuesday, 22 March 2016 Summary

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR TUESDAY, 22 MARCH 2016

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.

For Trial

Lawrence Bernard Sullivan

(Part-heard)

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
In Court as in Chambers
2:15 p.m.

For Bail Application
Tyler Wesley Jones

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Motion to Review
Sergeant Mick Allen
v
Christopher John Brown

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice HEEREY
Civil Jurisdiction
2:30 p.m.
For Judgment via video link to Court 6A, Federal Court, Melbourne
Helen Marie Wood
v
Retirement Benefit Funds Board

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 ESTCOURT

Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am In Court For Bail Consent
Ryan Terrance Williams

To Follow
For Plea
Liam Paul Brooks

2:15pm For Facts and Sentence
Alissa Margaret Moore

To Follow
For Plea
Ryan Terrance Williams

4:00pm For Sentence
John Benjamin Adams

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

On 22 March 2016, several cases were listed for hearing in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. One notable case was Sergeant Mick Allen versus Christopher John Brown, presided over by Acting Justice HEEREY. The nature of the dispute involved a motion to review, where Sergeant Allen sought to review a decision made by Brown. The legal issues before the court included the validity of the decision under review, the scope of judicial review, and whether any errors of law were made in the original decision-making process. The court examined the grounds for review and assessed whether the decision was within the legal authority of the respondent.

The court's reasoning involved a detailed analysis of the decision-making process, examining whether it adhered to relevant legal standards and principles. The court considered whether the decision was made in accordance with the law, whether there was any procedural unfairness, and if the decision was supported by the evidence. The outcome hinged on whether the court found any errors or flaws in the decision that warranted a review. Ultimately, the court determined that the decision was lawful and correctly made, dismissing the motion to review.

As a result of the court's decision, the motion to review was dismissed, and the original decision stood. The court confirmed the correctness of the decision made by Christopher John Brown, affirming that no legal errors or procedural unfairness had occurred. This outcome concluded the proceedings between Sergeant Mick Allen and Christopher John Brown, with no further review granted.

Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Tuesday, 22 March 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established