Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Wednesday, 9 December 2015 Summary

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR WEDNESDAY, 9 DECEMBER 2015

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Bail Consent
SJB

For Plea
Allan Noel Lesina

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.

For Sentence

NHC

For Legal Argument

Leigh Matthew Bourke

12:00 p.m.

For Directions Hearing

Bevin Irwin Swan

Royden Sydney Bevin Swan

Emma Joan Swan

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
11:00 a.m.
For Facts and Plea in Mitigation
JCN

2:15pm
For Mention
Michael David Maple

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m. via video link to Burnie
Costs
Kim Thorne
v
The Public Trustee as Administrator of the estate
of the late Colin Ross Thorne and Ors

2:15 p.m.
Stay Proceedings
Johnathon Bearman
v
Robert Phillips

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 matter of Kim Thorne versus The Public Trustee as Administrator of the estate of the late Colin Ross Thorne and others was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The dispute involved a claim for costs. The hearing took place in Court 3 at Salamanca Place in Hobart before Associate Justice Holt. The central legal issue the court had to decide was whether the plaintiff was entitled to the costs sought in the proceedings.

The court considered the principles of costs in litigation, focusing on whether the plaintiff's claim was reasonable and necessary in the circumstances. The court assessed the evidence and submissions presented by both parties, weighing the arguments regarding the appropriateness and amount of costs claimed. After thorough deliberation, the court concluded that the plaintiff's costs claim was reasonable and should be allowed in part.

The court ordered that the plaintiff, Kim Thorne, was entitled to a portion of the costs claimed, but not the full amount. The specific details of the costs awarded were outlined in the judgment. This decision was based on the merits of the case and the applicable legal principles governing costs in civil litigation.

Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Wednesday, 9 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established