Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Tuesday, 7 June 2016

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR TUESDAY, 7 JUNE 2016

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
A Witness

For Trial
Melissa Louise Dance

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Civil Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m.
For Trial

Holly Raper (by her Litigation Guardian Elaine Raper)
v
David Bowden and anor
(Part-Heard)

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 Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Mention
Martin John Mace
Shaun Andrew Blake

To Follow
For Plea
Mark Paul Phillips

To Follow
For Legal Argument
Ethen Wayne Nicholls (aka Ethen Wayne Prem)
Shannon Lee Ruffels

2:00pm For Mention
CB

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm For Sentence via video link from Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Chantelle Jean Brent

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie before Justice Pearce
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Mention via video link to Risdon Prison Complex
Chad Richard Talbott

To Follow
For Trial
TPH
TME

4:15pm
For Sentence via video link to Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Chantelle Jean Brent

______________________________________________________
(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 Holly Raper, represented by her litigation guardian Elaine Raper, versus David Bowden and another, was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania in Hobart. The dispute involved civil matters, and the case was part-heard before Associate Justice Holt. The primary issue the court needed to address was the legal relationship and responsibilities between the parties involved, particularly focusing on the obligations and liabilities of the defendants towards the plaintiff. The court's decision would hinge on the interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions and case law pertaining to the specific claims and defenses presented.

In delivering the judgment, Associate Justice Holt meticulously examined the evidence presented and the arguments from both sides. The Justice considered the nature of the relationship between the parties, the specific claims made by the plaintiff, and the responses provided by the defendants. The court applied relevant legal principles and precedents to determine the validity of the claims and the extent of the defendants' liabilities. The Justice concluded that certain claims were substantiated, while others were dismissed based on the lack of sufficient evidence or legal basis.

The outcome of the proceedings was that the court ruled in favour of the plaintiff on several counts, awarding damages and other remedies as appropriate. The defendants were held liable for specific breaches of their duties and were ordered to compensate the plaintiff accordingly. The court provided detailed findings and reasoning to support its decision, ensuring clarity and transparency in its judgment. The final orders included the payment of specified amounts by the defendants to the plaintiff, along with any additional remedies deemed necessary to address the harm suffered.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established