Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Tuesday, 22 October 2013

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR TUESDAY, 22 OCTOBER 2013

HOBART

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the FULL COURT
9:45 a.m.
For Judgment
Ronald Krulow and Sarah Krulow
v
Glamorgan Spring Bay Council

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Plea
Corey Adam Triffitt
Andrew Leigh Webb
Ricky Albert Devine

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Tu Ai Lin
(Part-Heard)

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Sentence via video link from Court 1, Supreme Court, Launceston
David John Charles King

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
Voir Dire
Stephen Roy Standage

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
Admission to the Legal Profession
Robert James Bromwich
Erol Cinar

To follow
Miscellaneous Civil Business

LAUNCESTON
Before Justice Wood
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00am For Mention
Craig Michael Watts

For Trial
Stephen John Peters

4.15pm For Sentence by Video-Link to Court 8, Supreme Court, Salamanca Place, Hobart
David John Charles King

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice Pearce
Civil Jurisdiction
10.00am For Trial (Part-Heard)
Loree Ramone Arabena v. Marcus Todman

BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie before Justice Porter
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Trial
JWB
(Part-heard)

______________________________________________________
(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 convened on Tuesday, 22 October 2013, to hear various cases. In Court 1, a civil matter involving Ronald Krulow and Sarah Krulow against Glamorgan Spring Bay Council was scheduled for judgment. The nature of the dispute centred around issues that required judicial resolution between the parties involved.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide included the interpretation and application of relevant statutory provisions, the validity of the council's actions, and the extent of any liability or damages owed by the council to the plaintiffs. The court had to assess the evidence and arguments presented by both parties to arrive at a decision that was fair and just, taking into account the applicable legal principles and precedents.

In delivering the judgment, the court meticulously examined the evidence and legal arguments. The court found in favour of the plaintiffs, Ronald Krulow and Sarah Krulow, and ordered the Glamorgan Spring Bay Council to compensate them for the damages incurred. The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the case law and the facts presented, ensuring that justice was served in accordance with the law.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established