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:
- AGLC
- Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Wednesday, 10 September 2014 [2014] TASSCCourtlist 184
- Case
- [2014] TASSCCourtlist 184
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.