Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Wednesday, 24 April 2013 Summary

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR WEDNESDAY, 24 APRIL 2013

HOBART
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Sentence
AEH

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention via video link to Supreme Court, Burnie
Djuro MrGic
Taylor Lee Thomas
Alan Robert Arkinstall

For Sentence via video link to Supreme Court, Burnie
Steven Dayle Johnston
Scott Thomas Clarke

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction

10.00 a.m.

For Mention via video link

Christopher Stephen Stanley

JGJ

ZSS

For Mention

Tristian Haugland

Mark William Eather
Shaun Michael Kelly
MDM
CSC
Adrian Lloyd Reardon
Puspalatha Kikkert
Jamie Leon Hales
Paul Fraser Catto
Yonnie Judith Keil
Tamara Elizabeth Watts
Travis Leigh Frankombe

Preliminary Proceedings Application
RS
Ricky Shane Batt
Nicholas David McWilliams
Joseph Andrew Edwards
TDC

For Plea
Sammy-Joe Lovell
Andrew Richard Denny
Bevan William Parkinson
JBH

For Breach Application
TCT
Stuart Malcolm Allen
Sean Patrick Salter

2.15 p.m.
For Sentence
SJM

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
For Plea
Glenn Sturley Meyer
Timothy Cawthorn
TAJC
Ashley Thomas Mann
Dale Anthony Wood
HS

For Application for Breach of Order
Scott Paul Crosswell

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Roy William Swan
v
Michael Eltringham

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
For Hearing
Clarence City Council
v
Howlin & Ors

4.00 p.m.
Application by telephone
National Australia Bank
v
O’Dwyer

4.15 p.m.
Pre-trial Conference by telephone
Hosking & Anor
v
Van Zetten & Ors

4.30 p.m.
Directions Hearing by telephone
CSR Building Products Limited
v
Enviro Living Pty Ltd & Anor

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice Evans
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00am For Trial
Glen Bamford

BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street Burnie before Justice Tennent
10:00 a.m.
Criminal Jurisdiction
In Court
For Mention by video link from Supreme Court, Hobart
Djuro MrGic
Taylor Lee Thomas
Alan Robert Arkinstall

For Sentence by video link from Supreme Court, Hobart
Steven Dayle Johnston
Scott Thomas Clarke

______________________________________________________
(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 matter before the Supreme Court of Tasmania involved several defendants and cases ranging from criminal to civil jurisdiction. In one instance, a case of Roy William Swan versus Michael Eltringham was scheduled for trial, while in another, Clarence City Council had an application against Howlin and others. Additionally, there were several criminal cases listed for mention, plea, and sentencing, both in-person and via video link. The court was set to handle various legal matters, including breaches of orders, pre-trial conferences, and directions hearings. The list also included cases with initials instead of full names due to legal restrictions on publishing personal information.

The legal issues before the court involved both criminal and civil matters. In the criminal cases, the court needed to address sentences, mentions, pleas, and breaches of orders. The court had to decide on the appropriate sentencing for those found guilty, consider pleas and whether to accept guilty pleas, and handle breaches of court orders. In the civil cases, the court needed to address trials, applications, and pre-trial conferences. This included deciding on the outcome of a trial between Roy William Swan and Michael Eltringham, handling an application by the Clarence City Council against Howlin and others, and managing pre-trial conferences in cases such as Hosking & Anor v Van Zetten & Ors and CSR Building Products Limited v Enviro Living Pty Ltd & Anor.

The court's reasoning and outcomes were to be determined during the proceedings. For the criminal cases, the court would have considered the evidence presented, the legal arguments from both sides, and the appropriate legal precedents. Sentencing would have been based on the severity of the offence, the defendant's criminal history, and any mitigating or aggravating factors. In civil cases, the court would have reviewed the evidence and legal submissions to make a decision on the merits of the case. The outcomes would include the final sentences for the defendants, decisions on pleas and breaches of orders, and rulings on the applications and trials listed. The specific outcomes were to be detailed in the court's written judgments, which would be released following the proceedings.

The final orders of the court would be communicated through written judgments and court orders. These documents would detail the court's decisions on each case, including sentences, pleas, and rulings on applications and trials. The judgments would provide the legal reasoning behind the decisions, referencing relevant statutes and case law. The orders would specify the outcomes and any further actions required by the parties involved. These documents would be made available to the public, subject to any legal restrictions on the publication of personal information.

Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Wednesday, 24 April 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established