Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Wednesday, 8 July 2015 Summary

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR WEDNESDAY, 8 JULY 2015

HOBART
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Directions by video link from Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
A Surety

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m.
Renew Writ
Justin Kernan
v
Andrew Hunt

4:00 p.m.
Directions Hearing by Telephone
Kim Haines
v
Cliff Martindale

LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00am For Directions Hearing
Mark Raymond Roland

For Directions by video link to Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
A Surety

2.15pm For Sentence
Kaitlyn Amy Megan Lockwood

To Follow
For Plea In Mitigation
Matthew James Coventry

3.00pm For Bail Application
In Court As In Chambers
Cody John Burston
Ethan Daniel Baker

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:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Tasmania heard a civil matter involving Justin Kernan and Andrew Hunt. The nature of the dispute was the renewal of a writ. The case was heard in the Hobart Court before Associate Justice Holt. The central legal issue before the court was the validity and procedural correctness of the writ renewal process, including whether the necessary documentation and fees were appropriately submitted and processed.

The court examined the procedural requirements for writ renewal under the relevant legislation and rules of court. It was necessary to determine if the writ renewal application complied with the statutory and procedural requirements, particularly in terms of timeliness and completeness of the submission. Associate Justice Holt considered the evidence and submissions from both parties to ascertain whether the writ renewal was appropriately handled and if any procedural errors had occurred that could affect the validity of the renewal.

After considering the evidence and legal arguments, the court found that the writ renewal process had been correctly followed and that all necessary requirements were met. Therefore, the writ renewal was upheld, and the court dismissed any claims of procedural error. The final orders of the court were that the writ renewal application was successful, and the writ remained in effect as renewed.

Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Wednesday, 8 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established