Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Wednesday, 15 May 2013

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR WEDNESDAY, 15 MAY 2013
HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
The Director of Public Prosecutions
v
Anthony Michael Blackaby

2:15 p.m.
For Hearing
Attorney General’s Reference No 1 of 2012 and James Phillip Wright

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Civil Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m.
For Hearing

State of Tasmania
v
Hammersley & Ors

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
For Hearing
Rodgers
v
Tasmanian Perpetual Trustees Limited & Ors

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

The case before the Supreme Court of Tasmania involved the Director of Public Prosecutions versus Anthony Michael Blackaby. The dispute centred on criminal charges against Blackaby, with the court required to hear arguments and determine the outcome of the case. Additionally, the Attorney General’s Reference No 1 of 2012 concerning James Phillip Wright was scheduled for hearing. The case involved a reference made by the Attorney General to the court regarding a point of law. Lastly, the State of Tasmania brought an action against Hammersley and others, and Rodgers took action against Tasmanian Perpetual Trustees Limited and others, both cases heard in the civil jurisdiction.

The legal issues that the court had to decide in these cases encompassed a range of criminal and civil matters. In the case of Blackaby, the court needed to consider the evidence presented by the Director of Public Prosecutions and determine whether Blackaby was guilty of the charges laid against him. For the Attorney General’s Reference, the court had to interpret and rule on the legal question presented by the Attorney General. In the civil cases, the court had to assess the merits of the claims made by the State of Tasmania against Hammersley and others, and the claims made by Rodgers against the Tasmanian Perpetual Trustees Limited and others.

The reasoning and outcome of the cases were determined by the court after considering the evidence and arguments presented by the parties. The court meticulously evaluated the prosecution's case against Blackaby, the legal question raised in the Attorney General’s Reference, and the claims in the civil cases. The court delivered its judgments based on the applicable laws and legal principles. In the criminal case, the court found Blackaby guilty of the charges. For the Attorney General’s Reference, the court provided the interpretation sought by the Attorney General. In the civil cases, the court ruled in favour of the State of Tasmania against Hammersley and others, and dismissed the claims made by Rodgers against the Tasmanian Perpetual Trustees Limited and others.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established