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 185
- Case
- [2014] TASSCCourtlist 185
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court encompassed the scope and necessity of the stay application, determining whether the applicant had established a prima facie case for an interim injunction. Furthermore, the directions hearing aimed to ensure that the case progresses efficiently, with both parties clearly understanding their obligations and the court’s expectations regarding the litigation process. The court's role in these proceedings was to provide guidance and ensure that the case moves towards a fair and timely resolution.
The court’s reasoning and outcome were not explicitly detailed in the provided text, but typically, in such cases, the court would assess the merits of the stay application based on the urgency and potential irreparable harm if the stay were not granted. For the directions hearing, the court would set out a clear path forward, including deadlines for filing additional pleadings, scheduling of discovery, and potentially setting a date for a case management conference. The final orders would reflect the court’s decisions on these procedural matters, providing clarity and direction for the parties involved in the litigation.
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.