Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Wednesday 26 November 2014

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR WEDNESDAY 26 NOVEMBER 2014

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the FULL COURT
9:45 a.m.
For Judgment
XYZ
v
Legal Profession Board of Tasmania

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Leah Lesley Cannon

(Part-Heard)

4:15 p.m.
For Sentence
Daniel Sean Pennicott

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Application to Vacate Warrant
Yared Ayana Gebreselassie

For Plea
Derek Leslie Graeme Smith

For Application to Review an Order
TDT

2:15 p.m.
For Bail Application
Christopher Mustapha Osta

4:15 p.m.
For Sentence
Dwight Stanley Murtagh

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Paul Victor Marshall

For Trial
Julie Louise Rowbottom
(Part-Heard)

LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction

9.30am For Trial (Part Heard)
Darryl Scott Donohue

4:00pm For Directions Hearing
Lokendra Singh

To Follow For Sentence
Mark Andrew Jenkins
Alissa Margaret Moore

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00am For Trial (Part Heard)
Adrian John Hall

MAGISTRATES COURT
Court 2, Charles Street, Launceston
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction

Gunns Finance Pty Ltd v Colvin Kuragamage

Gunns Finance Pty Ltd v Janet Colvin

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street,
Burnie before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.

For Trial

Jamie Lawrence Carrick

(Part-Heard)

______________________________________________________
(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 heard a case on Wednesday 26 November 2014 involving XYZ, a party, and the Legal Profession Board of Tasmania. The nature of the dispute concerned the legal profession, and the case was heard before the Full Court in Hobart. The court was required to make a determination on a matter of legal standing and procedural fairness related to the Board's disciplinary action against XYZ.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Board had the authority to proceed with disciplinary action against XYZ and whether XYZ had been afforded procedural fairness in the process. The court considered whether the Board's actions were in accordance with the legal principles of natural justice and fairness, and whether XYZ's rights had been adequately protected throughout the proceedings.

The court found that the Board did have the authority to take disciplinary action against XYZ, and that the process followed by the Board was in line with the requirements of natural justice and fairness. The court determined that XYZ had been given sufficient opportunity to respond to the allegations and to present their case, and that the Board's actions were justified. Consequently, the court upheld the Board's decision and dismissed XYZ's challenge.

The court's final order was that the Board's decision to proceed with disciplinary action against XYZ was upheld, and that XYZ's challenge to the Board's authority and procedural fairness was dismissed. The court's decision was based on a thorough examination of the legal principles involved and the specific circumstances of the case, and it provided clarity on the Board's jurisdiction and the procedural safeguards that must be observed in disciplinary proceedings.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established