Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists Thursday, 31 January 2013

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS THURSDAY, 31 JANUARY 2013

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice EVANS
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
For Mention
Brett Julian Robinson-Stacey

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
2.15 p.m.
For Plea
James William Lynch

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Civil Jurisdiction
11.30 a.m.
In Court as in Chambers
For Pre-Trial Conference
Rhys Alan Felmingham
v
Graeme John Fish

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9.30 a.m.
For Judgment via video link to Launceston
Guest
v
West Tamar Council & Ors

LAUNCESTON
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9.30 a.m.
For Judgment via video link from Hobart
Guest
v
West Tamar Council & Ors

BURNIE
No list for Burnie until further notice.

_______________________________________________________

(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 case of Rhys Alan Felmingham v Graeme John Fish was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The dispute revolved around civil matters, with Rhys Alan Felmingham, the plaintiff, seeking a resolution against Graeme John Fish, the defendant. The case was presided over by Associate Justice Holt in Court 3 at Salamanca Place, Hobart. The proceedings were part of a pre-trial conference, intended to manage the litigation process and set expectations for the trial.

The primary legal issues that the court needed to address in this case pertained to the procedural aspects of the litigation, including the management of the case timeline, the disclosure of evidence, and the setting of any preliminary matters that might need to be resolved before the trial could proceed. The court's role was to ensure that both parties were adequately prepared and that the trial would be conducted in a fair and efficient manner. Associate Justice Holt needed to establish a framework that would facilitate a smooth trial process, including the identification of any contentious issues that required special attention.

In delivering the judgment, Associate Justice Holt outlined the procedural steps that both parties must follow to prepare for the upcoming trial. The court emphasised the importance of timely disclosure of evidence and the need for both parties to cooperate in resolving any preliminary issues. The justice provided specific directions for the management of the case, including the scheduling of further pre-trial conferences and the setting of a trial date. The judgment also addressed any potential difficulties that might arise during the trial and provided a pathway for resolving these issues promptly.

The final orders included specific directions for both parties to adhere to the procedural framework set by the court. Both parties were required to disclose all relevant evidence by a specified date and to attend further pre-trial conferences as scheduled. The court also set a tentative trial date, subject to any changes that might be necessary based on the progress of the case. The orders ensured that both parties understood their obligations and the court's expectations for the upcoming trial.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established