Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Wednesday, 8 May 2013 Summary

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR WEDNESDAY, 8 MAY 2013

AMENDED LIST

HOBART

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction

2.15 p.m.

For Mention

Gavin Raymond McIntosh

Civil Jurisdiction

2.30 p.m.

For Judgment

D
v
Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
For Application
Daniel Luke Pelham

In Court as in Chambers
For Bail Application
JGJ

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Civil Jurisdiction
2.15 p.m.
In Court as in Chambers
For Costs Hearing
Andrew Martin Pearson and Anor
v
Tony Leigh Richardson and Ors

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
Via video link to Burnie
Application to Amend
Masters
v
Dobson Mitchell & Allport & Anor

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:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Tasmania listed matters for hearing on Wednesday, 8 May 2013, involving both criminal and civil cases. Notably, the court was to deliver judgment in the case of D v Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, presided over by Justice ESTCOURT. This case likely involved issues related to administrative law or health services, given the parties involved. Another significant matter was the bail application for Daniel Luke Pelham, heard in Court 1 before Justice PORTER. This application would have involved considerations of the accused's risk to the community and the likelihood of attending court.

The legal issues before the court in the D v Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services case likely revolved around the interpretation and application of health legislation, possibly touching on rights under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. The bail application for Daniel Luke Pelham would have necessitated a review of the evidence against him, the nature of the alleged offence, and the risk factors pertinent to granting bail. Both cases required the court to balance competing rights and obligations, whether in the context of healthcare provision or criminal justice.

The court, in delivering judgment in D v Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, would have carefully considered statutory provisions and relevant case law to determine the rights of the plaintiff under the health legislation. The outcome of this case would set a precedent for similar disputes involving health services and individual rights. In the bail application for Daniel Luke Pelham, the court would have weighed the evidence and arguments presented, focusing on the principles of bail law, including the presumption of innocence and the need to prevent unnecessary detention. The final orders of the court would have been communicated in writing, detailing the specific judgments and reasons for the decisions made.

Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Wednesday, 8 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established