Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Wednesday, 28 November 2012

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR WEDNESDAY, 28 NOVEMBER 2012

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice EVANS
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.

For Trial
Stuart Barry Russell

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
For Voir Dire
Louis Alexander Penny

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
E Kalis Properties
v
Ecena Pty Ltd and Ors

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Civil Jurisdiction
9.30 a.m.
For Trial
David Kronenberg and Robyn Kronenberg
v
Stephen Bridge and Stuart Tanner

(Part Heard)

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Alexander Street Burnie before Justice Wood
Criminal Jurisdiction

In Court
10.00 a.m.
For Trial

BKP

In Court as in Chambers
2.15 p.m.
For Bail Application

JMWM

BURNIE

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Chief Justice Crawford

Criminal Jurisdiction
9.45am For Trial (Part-Heard)
Thomas James Aliano

_______________________________________________________

(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 several cases on Wednesday, 28 November 2012. In Criminal Jurisdiction, Stuart Barry Russell was scheduled for trial in Court 7, while Louis Alexander Penny had a voir dire in Court 8. Both matters were presided over by Justice Porter. In Civil Jurisdiction, E Kalis Properties was engaged in proceedings against Ecena Pty Ltd and others, with the matter listed for hearing in Court 1 before Justice Blow. In another civil case, David Kronenberg and Robyn Kronenberg were involved in a part-heard trial against Stephen Bridge and Stuart Tanner in Court 2, presided over by Justice Tennent.

The court was tasked with determining various legal issues across the cases heard. In the criminal cases, the court needed to assess the evidence presented to decide on the guilt or innocence of the accused. For the voir dire, the court had to determine whether the evidence was admissible. In the civil cases, the court needed to resolve disputes over property and contractual obligations, considering the evidence and arguments presented by both parties.

The reasoning and outcome of the cases were not detailed in the provided document. As such, the specific legal principles applied and the final decisions made by the court remain undisclosed. However, the court’s role in adjudicating these matters involved interpreting the relevant laws, assessing the evidence, and making judgements based on established legal precedents.

No final orders were mentioned in the document, and it is likely that detailed judgments will be issued separately. The court’s decisions would have provided clarity on the legal rights and obligations of the parties involved in each case.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established