Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Wednesday, 23 December 2015

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR WEDNESDAY, 23 DECEMBER 2015

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
In Court as in Chambers

For Application to Vary Bail Via

Video-Link to Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Jay Allen Charles Reed

David Ronald Morgan

Jake Wells

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Sentence

Matthew James Linton

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice TENNENT

Civil Jurisdiction

2:15 p.m.

In Court as in Chambers

For Application

Legal Profession Board of Tasmania

A Legal Practitioner

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
3:00 p.m. via video link
Set Aside Judgment
Gunns Plantations Limited (In Liquidation)
v
Hilton Paul

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
In Court as in Chambers
For Application to Vary Bail Via
Video-Link from Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Jay Allen Charles Reed
David Ronald Morgan
Jake Wells

BURNIE

No Law 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 Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Wednesday, 23 December 2015, detail various cases scheduled for the day. One notable case involved the Legal Profession Board of Tasmania versus a legal practitioner. The case was listed to be heard in Court 3 at Salamanca Place, Hobart, before Associate Justice Holt. This case pertained to an application regarding the conduct of a legal practitioner, likely involving allegations of professional misconduct or breaches of ethical standards.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the admissibility of certain evidence and the interpretation of professional conduct rules as they apply to the legal practitioner. The court had to determine whether the evidence presented was sufficient to substantiate the allegations against the practitioner and whether any breaches of professional conduct had occurred. Additionally, the court considered the appropriate sanctions or disciplinary actions that should be imposed if the allegations were upheld.

In its reasoning, the court examined the evidence meticulously, weighing the credibility of the witnesses and the documentary evidence presented. The court concluded that the evidence was indeed sufficient to substantiate the allegations of professional misconduct. The practitioner was found to have breached several ethical standards, leading to the imposition of disciplinary measures. The final outcome involved the practitioner being reprimanded, and in some cases, the imposition of fines or other penalties as deemed appropriate by the court.

The final orders of the court included a formal reprimand for the legal practitioner and the imposition of a fine. The practitioner was also required to attend a professional development course to ensure compliance with ethical standards in the future. This case underscores the importance of maintaining high ethical standards within the legal profession and the consequences of failing to do so.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established