{"id":"tas:sr-2018-009","name":"Supreme Court Amendment Rules 2018","slug":"supreme-court-amendment-rules-2018","collection":"regulation","jurisdiction":"tas","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":"9 of 2018","makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":185038,"registerId":"tas-tas:sr-2018-009-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-05","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"Short title","content":"### 1 Short title\n\n> These Rules of Court may be cited as the [Supreme Court Amendment Rules 2018](/view/html/inforce/2026-04-12/sr-2018-009) .","sortOrder":0},{"sectionNumber":"2","sectionType":"section","heading":"Commencement","content":"### 2 Commencement\n\n> These Rules of Court take effect on the day on which their making is notified in the *Gazette*.","sortOrder":1},{"sectionNumber":"3","sectionType":"section","heading":"Principal Rules","content":"### 3 Principal Rules\n\n> In these Rules of Court, the [Supreme Court Rules 2000](/view/html/inforce/2026-04-12/sr-2000-008) are referred to as the Principal Rules.","sortOrder":2},{"sectionNumber":"4.","sectionType":"section","heading":null,"content":"### 4.\n\n> The amendments effected by this rule have been incorporated into the authorised version of the [Supreme Court Rules 2000](/view/html/inforce/2026-04-12/sr-2000-008) .\n\nA. M. BLOW\n\nChief Justice\n\nH. M. WOOD\n\nPuisne Judge\n\nS. P. ESTCOURT\n\nPuisne Judge\n\nR. W. PEARCE\n\nPuisne Judge\n\nM. J. BRETT\n\nPuisne Judge\n\nG. P. GEASON\n\nPuisne Judge\n\nCountersigned,\n\nJ. A. CONNOLLY\n\nRegistrar\n\nDisplayed and numbered in accordance with the *[Rules Publication Act 1953](/view/html/inforce/current/act-1953-050)*.\n\nNotified in the *Gazette* on 21 February 2018","sortOrder":3}],"analysis":{"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":1,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"This amendment instrument performs its intended narrow function: formally notifying that changes to the Supreme Court Rules 2000 have been made and incorporated. There is no scope creep — it does exactly what amendment rules are meant to do, no more and no less."},"complexity_factors":["Extremely short — only 4 substantive provisions","No defined terms requiring interpretation","No conditional logic or nested exceptions","No substantive legal content — merely a notification vehicle","Single cross-reference to principal legislation"],"plain_english_summary":"This is a short, technical court document that makes changes to Tasmania's Supreme Court Rules 2000. It doesn't contain the actual changes themselves — it simply states that changes have been made and that those changes have already been merged into the main 2000 Rules. Think of it like a 'patch note' that says 'updates applied' without listing what the updates were. It affects anyone involved in Supreme Court proceedings in Tasmania, as the amended rules govern how court cases are run, though practitioners would need to check the updated 2000 Rules to see what actually changed."},"summary":{"complexity_score":2,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"Based on the available text, there is no indication that the scope of this amendment diverged from its original intent. It appears to be a routine procedural update to the Supreme Court Rules, consistent with the narrow, technical nature of court rule amendments."},"complexity_factors":["The actual substantive content of the amendments is not reproduced in the provided text, making it impossible to assess the true legal complexity of the changes","Amendment rules (as opposed to principal legislation) are inherently narrow in scope","Procedural court rules are a specialist area but typically follow familiar patterns","No transitional provisions, definitions, or operative clauses are visible in the provided text"],"plain_english_summary":"This instrument makes procedural amendments to the Tasmanian Supreme Court's rulebook, changing how documents are filed, cases managed, and hearings run. It primarily affects lawyers, litigants and court registry staff.\n\nSuch rule changes can alter filing deadlines, fees, forms and case procedures; most Tasmanians are only affected if involved in a Supreme Court matter. In force from 21 February 2018."},"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":2,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The instrument does not expand or narrow the court's jurisdiction; it amends and incorporates changes into the Supreme Court Rules 2000 and sets a commencement mechanism (rules 3 and 4). The scope remains the update of procedural rules rather than a change in the Court's substantive powers."},"complexity_factors":["Very short instrument with only formal provisions (short title, commencement, identification of Principal Rules and note of incorporation).","Commencement dependent on Gazette notification (rule 2) — simple single trigger for effect.","No substantive amendments text included in this instrument (rule 4 notes incorporation into authorised version), so understanding requires consulting the authorised Supreme Court Rules 2000.","Clear signatories (judges and Registrar) reduce uncertainty about scope and authority."],"plain_english_summary":"This instrument amends the Supreme Court Rules 2000 and records that those amendments have been incorporated into the authorised version. It takes effect when the notice of making is published in the Gazette (commencement by notification). It therefore alters the operative procedural rules that govern practice in the Supreme Court. The instrument is signed by the Chief Justice, puisne judges and the Registrar and is immediately relevant to anyone who must follow the Supreme Court Rules once notified."},"issue_detection":{"absurdities":[{"type":"other","section":"Status Information - Currency of version","severity":"low","reasoning":"A document described as current from 21 February 2018 should not have a file modification date of 15 February 2019 unless amendments were made. If amendments were made, the 'current from' date is misleading. If no amendments were made, the modification date is unexplained. The metadata is internally inconsistent.","confidence":0.6,"description":"The legislation states it is 'current from 21 February 2018 to date' while simultaneously stating the file was last modified on 15 February 2019 — nearly a full year after the stated commencement date, suggesting substantive changes occurred that are not reflected in the version descriptor."},{"type":"other","section":"Status Information - Currency of version","severity":"low","reasoning":"The assurance of currency within 3 working days is unverifiable from the document itself, rendering the guarantee practically meaningless to a reader relying solely on this instrument. This is a structural absurdity in legislative publication rather than a drafting flaw in the operative rules.","confidence":0.5,"description":"The document states legislation 'is usually updated within 3 working days after a change to the legislation,' yet the Table of Amending Instruments is provided by hyperlink rather than inline, making it impossible to verify from the face of the document whether any such updates have actually occurred or whether the version presented is genuinely current."},{"type":"impossible_compliance","section":"Document structure - All headings","severity":"high","reasoning":"An amending instrument that contains no discernible operative provisions — no rule being amended, no new rule inserted, no transitional arrangement — cannot be complied with or applied. If this represents the totality of the instrument, it is logically impossible to determine what the Supreme Court Rules are being amended to say. The duplication of every heading suggests a serious rendering or publication error, but as presented the instrument is legally inoperative.","confidence":0.85,"description":"Every heading and section title in this instrument is duplicated verbatim (e.g., 'Status Information Status Information', 'Currency of version Currency of version', 'Authorisation Authorisation'). This creates an absurd document where no substantive operative rule is visible — the entire instrument as presented consists solely of repeated metadata headings with no actual amending provisions."}],"contradictions":[{"severity":"low","section_a":"Status Information - Currency of version ('Version current from 21 February 2018 to date')","section_b":"Authorisation ('File last modified 15 February 2019')","confidence":0.65,"description":"The instrument claims to be current from its commencement date of 21 February 2018 without interruption, yet the file modification date of 15 February 2019 implies the document was altered approximately 12 months after commencement. These two statements cannot both be fully accurate: either the version is not continuously current from 21 February 2018 (because it was modified), or the modification date is erroneous."}]}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/supreme-court-amendment-rules-2018","history":"/api/acts/supreme-court-amendment-rules-2018/history","analysis":"/api/acts/supreme-court-amendment-rules-2018/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/supreme-court-amendment-rules-2018/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/supreme-court-amendment-rules-2018/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/supreme-court-amendment-rules-2018/documents"}}