Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Wednesday, 5 December 2012

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR WEDNESDAY, 5 DECEMBER 2012

HOBART

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

For Further Directions Hearing
Eugene William Smith
Peta Louise Feil
Andrew Ian Devine
Lewis Wayne Coles

For Trial
Stuart Barry Russell

(Part-Heard)

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00 p.m.
For Application
Daniel Ashley Wheatley

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
2.15 p.m.
For Decision
Steven Kevin Jones
Louis Alexander Penny

4.00 p.m.
For Sentence
Sean Thomas Free

4.15 p.m.
For Sentence
Damien William Harris
Anthony Michael Blackaby

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Civil Jurisdiction
10.00am
For Trial
David Kronenberg and Robyn Kronenberg
v
Stephen Bridge and Stuart Tanner

(Part-Heard)

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
For Hearing
Koukias
v
Koukias & Anor

LAUNCESTON
No list at time of publication

BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street Burnie before Justice Wood
Criminal Jurisdiction

10.00 a.m. For Trial (Part-Heard)
Cyrus Francis Halfacre
Guthrie Gene Halfacre

2.15 p.m. For Mention
Peter Mervyn Munday

For Sentence
Daniel Robert Bugg

_______________________________________________________

(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

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Justice Evans presided over the hearing of a case involving Eugene William Smith, Peta Louise Feil, Andrew Ian Devine, and Lewis Wayne Coles. The nature of the dispute was not detailed in the provided extract. The court was set to provide further directions in this matter. Another case before Justice Blow involved Daniel Ashley Wheatley, who had filed an application that was scheduled for hearing. This case likely involved some form of legal remedy or procedural matter that required judicial attention.

The legal issues before the court were not explicitly stated in the document. However, they likely involved the interpretation and application of relevant laws and legal principles to the facts of each case. For the case involving Smith et al., the court would have had to consider the evidence and arguments presented to decide the next steps in the proceedings. In the case of Wheatley, the court would have needed to assess the merits of the application and determine whether to grant or deny the requested relief.

Justice Evans directed further proceedings for the case involving Smith et al., likely after considering the evidence and arguments presented. The outcome of the Wheatley application was not detailed in the provided extract. The document does not provide information on the final orders made in these cases. However, it is likely that the court would have issued directions, rulings, or orders that would guide the next steps in each case, ensuring that the legal process continued appropriately.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established