Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Wednesday, 10 September 2014

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR WEDNESDAY, 10 SEPTEMBER 2014

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Aaron James Irwin
Luke Andrew Irwin

For Trial
Jay John Bradford
Derek Michael Crosswell
David Ian Charles Coles
(Part-Heard)

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Nathan Robert Griffith

For Trial
Christie-Lee Margaret Shaw
(Part-Heard)

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m.
Stay Application
Duncan McPherson
v
Housing Tasmania

4:15 p.m.
Directions Hearing by Telephone
Brian Silvia and Peter Krejci in their capacity
as joint and several deed administrators of FEA Plantations Ltd
and Forest Enterprises Australia Ltd
v
Thomas Curtain in his capacity as trustee for the Banyan Superannuation Fund

LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
2.15pm For Sentence
Rodney James McDonald
Ricky Lee Badcock

4:15pm For Sentence
Kurt Douglas Brimfield

For Further Submissions
Cameron James Brasher

BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie before Justice Wood
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Mention
Mark Christopher Bramich
Tara Jayne Stokes
Joel Anthony Tucker
Stephen Matthew Biggs
Matthew Brian Williams

For Plea
Andrew Michael Richardson

2:15p.m.
For Sentence
Adam James Orme

For Preliminary Proceedings Application
Nicholas Mark Anderson

______________________________________________________
(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

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, the case of Duncan McPherson v Housing Tasmania was heard before Associate Justice HOLT in civil jurisdiction. The matter involved a stay application by Duncan McPherson against Housing Tasmania. The court was required to determine whether the proceedings should be stayed pending the outcome of another matter. The legal issues centred on the principles of judicial economy, the potential for prejudice, and the likelihood of a final resolution of the issues in the other proceedings.

The court considered the factors that warranted a stay, including the risk of conflicting outcomes, the likelihood of a resolution in the other proceedings, and the interests of justice. Associate Justice HOLT found that the application for a stay was well-founded. The court held that the proceedings should be stayed to avoid potential prejudice and to allow for an efficient resolution of the issues in the other matter. The court's decision was based on the balance of convenience and the need to avoid duplicative litigation.

In light of the court's reasoning, the proceedings against Housing Tasmania were stayed pending the outcome of the other matter. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the interests of justice were served by avoiding unnecessary litigation. The final order of the court was that the proceedings be stayed until further order of the court.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established