Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Tuesday, 9 February 2016

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR TUESDAY, 9 FEBRUARY 2016

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Trial
JWA

(Part-Heard)

10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Laurence Bernard Sullivan
Cameron Matthew Roberts

For Trial
Yared Ayana Gebreselassie

2:15 p.m.

For Bail Variation

Gracia Itala-Mavuya

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:00 a.m.
For Trial
LCC
(Part Heard)

10:00am
For Mention
SJB

In Court as In Chambers
10:00 a.m.
For Bail Application
Dion Brian Lumley

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Stirling Matthew Hookway
v
Tamzin Peta Hookway

Tamzin Peta Hookway
v
Stirling Matthew Hookway

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
10:00am For Trial (Part-Heard)
Linda Lee Jones
Tiffany Louise Shaw

BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie before Chief Justice Blow
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Daryl John Streets
Aaron Luke Dooley

For Trial
Jeremy Stephen Lane
(part-heard)

2:15 p.m.
For Facts and Sentence
Michael Robert Keeling

______________________________________________________
(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

Stirling Matthew Hookway was the plaintiff, and Tamzin Peta Hookway was the defendant in a case heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania on February 9, 2016. The plaintiff sought a divorce from the defendant on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. The court was required to decide whether the marriage had indeed irretrievably broken down and whether the divorce should be granted.

The court heard evidence from both parties and considered the factors that contribute to the breakdown of a marriage. The court found that the marriage had indeed broken down irretrievably and that the plaintiff had met the necessary criteria for a divorce. The court also considered the financial and property settlement between the parties, and made orders accordingly.

In its judgment, the court found that the marriage between the plaintiff and defendant had irretrievably broken down and that a divorce should be granted. The court also made orders regarding the division of the parties' property and financial resources. The final orders were made in favour of the plaintiff, and the marriage was dissolved.

This case highlights the importance of considering the factors that contribute to the breakdown of a marriage when deciding whether to grant a divorce. The court also emphasised the need to make fair and equitable orders regarding the division of property and financial resources between the parties.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established