Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Wednesday, 27 February 2013

Case [2013] TASSCCourtlist 25


SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR WEDNESDAY, 27 FEBRUARY 2013

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Director of Public Prosecutions
v
Norton Dudley Williamson

2:00 p.m.
For Hearing
Director of Public Prosecutions
v
Roberta Shaw

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Judgment
Gen 3 Development Pty Ltd
v
Devonport City Council;

Gen 3 Development Pty Ltd
v
Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal

4:30 p.m.
In Court as in Chambers
For Judgment
Bowles
v
Motor Accidents Insurance Board

For Directions Hearing
In the matter of the Estate of the late Marnie Maconachie

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Civil Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
For Decision as to Costs
Wakefield
v
Power and Anor

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
For Discovery
State of Tasmania
v
Croft

LAUNCESTON
No list for Launceston

BURNIE

No 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:

Details
AGLC
Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Wednesday, 27 February 2013 [2013] TASSCCourtlist 25
Case
[2013] TASSCCourtlist 25
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Tasmania heard a number of matters on Wednesday, 27 February 2013. In the afternoon, Justice BLOW heard two civil cases. The first was between Gen 3 Development Pty Ltd and Devonport City Council, as well as Gen 3 Development Pty Ltd and the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal. The second was Bowles v Motor Accidents Insurance Board. In the matter of the Estate of the late Marnie Maconachie, Justice BLOW was scheduled to hold a directions hearing. In Launceston, no list was provided.

The legal issues in the case between Gen 3 Development Pty Ltd and Devonport City Council, as well as Gen 3 Development Pty Ltd and the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal, likely pertained to planning and development regulations, potentially involving zoning, permits, or compliance issues. The case Bowles v Motor Accidents Insurance Board would have focused on claims related to motor accidents and insurance coverage. Justice BLOW's decision in these matters would have been based on statutory interpretation, administrative law principles, and relevant case law.

The reasoning and outcome of these cases were not detailed in the provided excerpt. The court's decisions would have hinged on the interpretation of relevant statutes, the application of legal precedents, and the specific facts presented in each case. The final orders, including any judgments, directions, or decisions on costs, were not specified in the text.

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.