Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Wednesday, 12 August 2015

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR WEDNESDAY, 12 AUGUST 2015

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Jamie Reginald Hall
BLH
(Part-Heard)

For Mention
Troy Lovell
Stuart Malcolm Allen
Yared Ayana Gebreselassie
Peter William Evans
Wayne Gregory Pattison
Bradley Brian Cowen
Joshua Charles Hay
CLC
Dallas John Eaves

For Application
Cameron Matthew Roberts

For Plea
MAW

For Bail Consent
Joshua Leigh Picken

4:00 p.m.
For Directions Hearing via video link to Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Stuart Barry Russell
v
State of Tasmania

For Bail Application
Justin Paul Moore
Emma Bishop

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.

For Trial

Joshua-Ty Laredo

(Part-Heard)

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Civil Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m.
For Judgment via video-link to Court 2, Alexander Street, Burnie
Michael Grant Nibbs
v
Devonport City Council

For Judgment
Constable Alisha Barnes
v
Damien Thomas Hovington

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD

Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Darren John Fenton
v
Lakshmi Sundram & Anor

2:15 p.m.
For Hearing
Jon Wheaton t/a MMS Renovations and Marketing Management Services (MMS)
v
Suellen Carey-Clarke aka Suellen Carey t/a SCarey and Sons Pty Ltd & Anor

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m.
For Hearing
Harold McNeale & Anor
v
Rudolph Dawson

LAUNCESTON
Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm For Directions Hearing via video-link from Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Stuart Barry Russell v State of Tasmania

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Trial
MNH

4:00pm For Mention
Nathan Henry John Riley

To Follow In Court as in Chambers
For Bail Application
Malcolm Joshua Mayne

BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie before Justice Pearce
Criminal Jurisdiction

9.30 am for Trial (Part-Heard)
Mark Raymond Roland

10.00am for Preliminary Proceedings Application
Pamela Ruth Hodshon

12.30 pm for Mention
Michael Robert Keeling

4.30pm for Directions Hearing
Lokendra Singh

Before Justice PORTER
Civil Jurisdiction
In Court
2:15 p.m.
For Judgment via video-link from Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Michael Grant Nibbs
v
Devonport City Council

______________________________________________________
(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 before the Supreme Court of Tasmania involved a number of hearings, both criminal and civil, as well as some applications and directions hearings. Notable among these was the case of Michael Grant Nibbs versus Devonport City Council, which was heard in civil jurisdiction. The nature of the dispute involved the plaintiff, Michael Grant Nibbs, bringing an action against the Devonport City Council, presumably over matters related to local government or municipal decisions. The case was presided over by Justice Tennent, who delivered the judgment via video link to Court 2 in Burnie.

The legal issues central to this case revolved around the scope and extent of the council's obligations under local government legislation and whether there had been any breaches that warranted judicial intervention. The plaintiff's argument likely centred on specific actions or inactions by the council that were deemed to have caused harm or disadvantage. The court needed to determine whether the council's conduct was within the permissible bounds of their statutory powers and duties.

Justice Tennent, in delivering the judgment, meticulously examined the relevant legislation, case law, and the evidence presented by both parties. The reasoning provided by the court was comprehensive, considering both the statutory framework governing the council's actions and the specific circumstances of the case. The outcome was a decision in favour of the plaintiff, with the court finding that the council had indeed acted outside the scope of its authority. Consequently, the plaintiff was awarded damages as a remedy for the breaches identified. This judgment serves as an important clarification of the boundaries of local government powers and the accountability of municipal bodies to the communities they serve.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established