Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Wednesday, 12 June 2013

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR WEDNESDAY, 12 JUNE 2013

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Application
Lynette Anne Murray
v
The Queen

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD

Civil Jurisdiction

4.15 p.m.

For Decision

Kevin Laurence Davenport
v
Sergeant Gary Lusted

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
Summary Judgment
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation
v
Gibson

2.15 p.m.
Examination
Griffin
v
Hammond

4.30 p.m.
Pre Trial Conference by telephone
Rees
v
Wescombe

LAUNCESTON
No list for Launceston

BURNIE
No list for Burnie
______________________________________________________
(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, on 12 June 2013, two cases were scheduled for hearing. The first case, involving Lynette Anne Murray versus The Queen, was set for an application in Court 7 at 10:00 a.m. This case was presided over by Chief Justice Blow and dealt with a criminal matter. The second case, Kevin Laurence Davenport versus Sergeant Gary Lusted, was scheduled for a decision in Court 8 at 4.15 p.m. before Justice Wood. This case involved a civil dispute.

The legal issues in Davenport v Lusted revolved around the specifics of the civil claim, including the nature of the alleged wrongdoing by Sergeant Lusted and the extent of any damages or relief sought by Davenport. The court needed to evaluate the evidence presented by both parties and determine the validity of the claims and counterclaims, if any. Additionally, the court had to consider whether any procedural issues needed to be addressed before proceeding to a full trial or making a final decision.

The court's reasoning and outcome in Davenport v Lusted were not explicitly detailed in the provided text. However, it can be inferred that the court would have considered the merits of the case, assessed the evidence, and potentially ruled on procedural matters. The outcome would have depended on the findings regarding the validity of the claims and the application of relevant legal principles. The final orders of the court were not specified in the provided text, but typically, they would include directions for further proceedings or a decision on the merits of the case.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established