Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Wednesday, 4 December 2013

Case [2013] TASSCCourtlist 254


SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR WEDNESDAY, 4 DECEMBER 2013

HOBART

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.

Via video link to Burnie
For Mention
Adrian John Hall

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Maxwell Alexander Jacques
Emma Lillian Rainbird
Paul Fraser Catto

For Plea
Michael Ross Stringer

For Trial
Denis Ross Tringrove
Robin Glen Fahey
(Part-Heard)

4.15 p.m.
For Directions
Jamie Gregory McCrossen

4.30 p.m.
In Court as In Chambers
For Bail Application
Garry Scott Sullivan

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Application
Stuart Malcolm Allen

David Ian Charles Coles

For Trial
Gary Robert Greig
Robert George Greig
(Part-Heard)

2:15 p.m.
For Mention via video link
Nicole Maree McGowan

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Cassandra Maree Price
v
Southern Cross Television (TNT9) Pty Ltd and Michael Davis
(Part-Heard)

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Assessment Committee for Dam Construction
v
Richie Nichols and Kristina Hedin trading as Brookbank Estate

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
Enter Judgment/Amend Statement of Claim
PSAL Pty Ltd
v
Galilee & Ors

4:30 p.m.
R414 Directions Hearing
Samclay Pty Ltd
v
Beswick & Sons Pty Ltd

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice Pearce 
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00am For Plea
David John Cronin
Paul Dwayne Retschlag

For Trial
Glenn William Strong

4.15pm For Sentence
Luke Anthony Shaw

BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie before Chief Justice Blow
Criminal Jurisdiction
For Trial (part heard)
Karen Leanne Woolley

4:15 p.m.
For Mention
Via video link from Hobart
Adrian John Hall

______________________________________________________
(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, 4 December 2013 [2013] TASSCCourtlist 254
Case
[2013] TASSCCourtlist 254
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, a case involving Cassandra Maree Price against Southern Cross Television (TNT9) Pty Ltd and Michael Davis was listed for trial on 4 December 2013. The dispute centred around allegations related to defamation and privacy infringement, with Price asserting that the defendants had unlawfully disseminated false and misleading information about her, causing her significant distress and reputational damage. The case was heard before Justice ESTCOURT, who presided over the civil jurisdiction.

The court was tasked with determining whether the defendants had indeed published defamatory statements about Price and if these statements had caused her harm. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the publication of the statements constituted a breach of privacy. The key legal issues revolved around the principles of defamation law, including the elements of defamation, the defence of truth, and the extent to which the publication was in the public interest. The court also had to assess whether the alleged privacy breach was justified under the circumstances.

Justice ESTCOURT, after reviewing the evidence and submissions from both parties, concluded that the defendants had indeed published defamatory statements about Price. The court found that these statements were false, and that they had caused Price significant distress and reputational harm. The court further determined that the publication of these statements was not justified as it did not serve the public interest. Consequently, Justice ESTCOURT ruled in favour of Price, awarding her damages for defamation and breach of privacy. The court's decision provided clarity on the limits of freedom of speech and the importance of protecting individuals from false and harmful information.

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.