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:
- AGLC
- Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Wednesday 26 November 2014 [2014] TASSCCourtlist 254
- Case
- [2014] TASSCCourtlist 254
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.