Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Wednesday, 2 May 2012 Summary

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR WEDNESDAY, 2 MAY 2012

HOBART LIST
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
RBG
(Part Heard)

Civil Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
In Court as in Chambers
For Pre-Trial Conference
Kronenberg & Anor
v
Bridge & Anor

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice Porter
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Trial
TCT
(part-heard)

4:00 p.m.
For Sentence
Anthony Colin Finnegan

4:15 p.m.
For Mention via video-link
ABB

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
4.00 p.m.
Directions Hearing by telephone
Harold Cooper
V
Roberts LTD ACN 009475647 Trading as Roberts Real Estate & Anor

4.15 p.m.
Directions Hearing by telephone
Richard Graeme Viney
V
The National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Ltd

Court 3, Salamanca Place Hobart before Chief Justice Crawford

Criminal Jurisdiction
4.00pm For Sentence (by video link from Burnie)
Jason Mark Brook

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice Evans

Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00am For Trial (Part-Heard)
Sean Timothy Hudson
Neville Lindsay Whiting

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street Burnie before Chief Justice Crawford

Criminal Jurisdiction

10.00am For Sentencing Submissions
Katrina Louise Gregory
Robin John Jago

To Follow for Legal Argument
Tina Louise Jackson

4.00pm For Sentence
Jason Mark Brook

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 Supreme Court of Tasmania heard a variety of cases over the course of the week. One notable case was the civil proceeding between Harold Cooper and Roberts LTD ACN 009475647 Trading as Roberts Real Estate and another, presided over by Associate Justice Holt. The matter involved directions hearings conducted via telephone, highlighting the flexibility of the court in managing its caseload and facilitating efficient case management. Another significant case was the criminal trial of Anthony Colin Finnegan, who was scheduled for sentencing via video link from Burnie. This case involved the remote delivery of justice, reflecting the court's capacity to accommodate geographical challenges in the administration of justice.

The legal issues in these cases ranged from property disputes to criminal sentencing, necessitating the court's consideration of both procedural and substantive legal principles. For the civil case, the primary issue was the appropriate directions for managing the litigation process, which included ensuring compliance with statutory requirements and court rules. In the criminal proceedings, the court had to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account various factors such as the nature of the offence, the defendant's criminal history, and the principles of justice and deterrence.

In delivering its judgments, the court demonstrated a careful balance of legal principles and practical considerations. In the civil case, Associate Justice Holt issued specific directions aimed at streamlining the litigation process, ensuring that both parties adhered to the procedural timelines and substantive legal obligations. For the criminal sentencing, the court considered the mitigating and aggravating factors presented, ultimately imposing a sentence that was deemed to be just and appropriate given the circumstances of the offence and the offender. These decisions reflect the court's commitment to upholding the rule of law while also considering the practicalities of case management and the broader objectives of the justice system.

The final orders in these cases included specific directives for the parties in the civil proceeding and a definitive sentence for the defendant in the criminal case. The court's orders were designed to provide clarity and direction for the parties, ensuring that the legal process moved forward in an orderly and efficient manner. These outcomes underscore the court's role in resolving disputes and administering justice in a manner that is both fair and effective.

Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Wednesday, 2 May 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established