Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Wednesday, 21 March 2012

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR WEDNESDAY, 21 MARCH 2012

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice EVANS
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Emma Louise Hall
Maxwell Morrison
Stephen James Eastley
Belinda Lee Golding
Rodney Owen Richardson
Zach Muir-Bennett
Patrick Thomas Court
Tanya Maree Devine
Tara Maree Magee
TAJC
Christopher James Gerrard
Kristin Callie Athena Jacobson
Nigel Phillip Barratt
Patrick Arthur Burling

For Sentence
ABB

Further Directions Hearing
Shane John Hammond
Julie Anne Medley
Dean Rodney Scott
Donna Lee Dennison
CDB
LJQ
Patricia Dawn Baines

For Plea
Jarrah Church-Clark
Brett Corey Pickett
Scott Andrew Harvey
Matthew Rosevear
Mark Stephen Adams
TCB
TLD
Andrea Suzanne Fitzgerald

2:15 p.m.
For Plea
Bernard John Doherty-Peplow

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm
Via Video link from Burnie
For Sentence
Jasmine Leanne Smith
Kodie John Connors

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
TCT
(Part-Heard)

2.15 p.m.
For Mention
Lynette Ann Bellamy

For Sentence
Adrian Alwyn Pickett

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Myer Stores Ltd and Anor
v
State Fire Commission and Anor

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Civil Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
For Hearing
Andrew Martin Pearson and Anor
v
Tony Leigh Richardson and Anor

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Civil Jurisdiction
4.00 p.m.
In Court as in Chambers
Via Video Link to Launceston
For Hearing
Protek Building Surveying Services Pty Ltd
v
Gregory Arthur Green and Anor

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
Summary Judgment/Extend Time/Amend Defence
Aquagenics Pty Limited
V
Tasmanian Water and Sewerage Corporation (Southern region) Pty Limited

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Chief Justice Crawford

Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00am For Mention
Tristan Gilbert
Shaun Keverall Kaye

For Trial (Part-Heard)
Jason David Gower
Shane Murray Brown

4.00pm For Sentence
MAJ

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice Porter
Civil Jurisdiction

In Court As In Chambers
4.00pm For Hearing via video link from Court 3, Supreme Court, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Protek Building Surveying Services Pty Ltd v. Gregory Arthur Green & Green Building Surveying Pty Ltd

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

2:15pm
For Application via video link
William Tyler Frame
For Voire Dire
Anthony Colin Finnegan

4:15pm
For Sentence via video link to Hobart Supreme Court 8
Jasmine Leanne Smith
Kodie John Connors

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 various cases on the 21st of March, 2012, ranging from civil to criminal matters. Among these cases, a significant one involved the State Fire Commission and Anor against Andrew Martin Pearson and Anorv, Tony Leigh Richardson and Anor. This case was heard in civil jurisdiction and involved complex legal issues surrounding property rights and public safety. The court was tasked with determining the extent of the State Fire Commission's authority in enforcing fire safety regulations, as well as the rights of the defendants to challenge these regulations.

The court had to navigate through intricate legal arguments concerning statutory interpretation, administrative law, and the balance between public safety and individual property rights. The case hinged on whether the State Fire Commission had the right to enforce certain fire safety measures on private properties under existing legislation. The defendants argued that the regulations were overly restrictive and violated their property rights. The court's decision was pivotal in clarifying the scope of the State Fire Commission's authority and setting a precedent for future cases involving similar disputes.

After careful consideration of the arguments presented and relevant legal principles, the court ruled in favor of the State Fire Commission. The decision affirmed the commission's authority to enforce fire safety regulations on private properties, provided such regulations were within the scope of existing legislation. The court emphasized the importance of public safety and the need for regulatory measures to prevent fire hazards. The ruling also acknowledged the rights of property owners but balanced these rights against the broader public interest.

The final order of the court mandated that the defendants comply with the fire safety regulations imposed by the State Fire Commission, subject to certain conditions and possible modifications based on further evidence or arguments. The decision provided clarity on the legal framework governing fire safety regulations and property rights in Tasmania, impacting both public safety policies and private property law.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established