{"id":"tas:sr-2005-125","name":"Supreme Court Amendment Rules (No. 2) 2005","slug":"supreme-court-amendment-rules-no-2-2005","collection":"regulation","jurisdiction":"tas","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":"125 of 2005","makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":317702,"registerId":"tas-tas:sr-2005-125-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-08","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 (No. 2) 2005](/view/html/inforce/2026-04-12/sr-2005-125) .","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) .","sortOrder":3},{"sectionNumber":"5.","sectionType":"section","heading":null,"content":"### 5.\n\n> The amendment effected by this rule has been incorporated into the authorised version of the [Supreme Court Rules 2000](/view/html/inforce/2026-04-12/sr-2000-008) .\n\nP. G. UNDERWOOD\n\nChief Justice\n\nE. C. CRAWFORD\n\nPuisne Judge\n\nP. W. SLICER\n\nPuisne Judge\n\nP. E. EVANS\n\nPuisne Judge\n\nCountersigned,\n\nI. G. RITCHARD\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 9 November 2005\n\nThese Rules of Court are administered in the Department of Justice.","sortOrder":4}],"analysis":{"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":2,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"This is a straightforward amendment instrument that performs exactly its intended function: making specific technical amendments to the Supreme Court Rules 2000. There is no scope creep evident."},"complexity_factors":["Extremely short document (only 5 rules)","No defined terms section (only one reference to 'Principal Rules')","No cross-references to other legislation beyond the parent Rules","No conditional logic or nested exceptions","Rules 4 and 5 are essentially placeholder statements saying 'the changes are elsewhere'","Standard commencement and citation provisions"],"plain_english_summary":"This document is a set of procedural rules that amend the Supreme Court Rules 2000 (the main rules governing how the Supreme Court operates). It is essentially a 'patch note' for court procedures.\n\n**What it does:**\n- Makes technical amendments to the existing Supreme Court Rules\n- The actual changes (in rules 4 and 5) have already been merged into the main 2000 Rules, so this document itself doesn't contain the substantive changes anymore\n\n**Who it affects:**\n- Lawyers practising in the Supreme Court\n- Litigants (people involved in court cases)\n- Court staff\n\n**Why it matters:**\nCourt rules govern everything from how documents are filed to how trials are conducted. These amendments likely fixed specific procedural issues, though the details are no longer visible in this document since they've been incorporated into the main rules."},"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":3,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The instrument does not itself expand or narrow the court's jurisdiction or the classes of people to whom the Rules apply. It operates to amend and have those amendments incorporated into the authorised version of the Supreme Court Rules 2000; to see the precise scope of change one must consult that authorised version as referenced (rules 3–5)."},"complexity_factors":["Amendment-only instrument: does not reproduce the substantive text of the changes, requiring users to consult the authorised version of the Supreme Court Rules 2000 to determine effects (rules 4–5).","Commencement by Gazette notice creates a single external trigger for effectiveness; stakeholders must watch the Gazette to know the operative date (rule 2).","Dependent on cross-reference: the instrument modifies the Principal Rules by reference rather than by standalone provisions, tying legal effect to another instrument (rule 3).","Administrative formalities present but no operational guidance: signatures and Registrar countersignature indicate judicial approval but do not explain implementation or transitional arrangements.","Practical compliance burden: lawyers and court users must update practices and documents to align with the incorporated authorised version rather than this notice alone."],"plain_english_summary":"This instrument amends the Supreme Court Rules 2000 and comes into force on the day its making is notified in the Gazette. It does not print the substantive amendment text here; instead it records that specific changes have been incorporated into the authorised version of the Principal Rules. It affects anyone governed by the Supreme Court Rules — litigants, lawyers and court staff — who must follow the updated procedural rules once the Gazette notice is published."},"summary":{"complexity_score":2,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"Based on available information, this instrument appears to be a routine, targeted amendment to Supreme Court procedural rules. There is no indication of scope creep or deviation from its original purpose of updating court procedure. The lack of substantive text prevents a definitive assessment."},"complexity_factors":["Only administrative metadata is available — the substantive amendment text is absent from the provided document, preventing full analysis","Procedural rules amendments are typically technical but narrow in scope, affecting court practice rather than broad legal rights","Amending instrument format (rather than standalone legislation) adds a layer of complexity as it must be read alongside the principal Supreme Court Rules","Tasmanian-specific jurisdiction limits applicability and cross-jurisdictional comparison"],"plain_english_summary":"This instrument amends the Supreme Court Rules of Tasmania and came into force on 9 November 2005. It changes court procedure used by the Supreme Court — affecting how cases are run — and therefore mainly matters to lawyers practising there and litigants who must follow those procedures. The provided record lacks the actual amendment text, so it appears to be a routine procedural update rather than a change to substantive legal rights."},"issue_detection":{"absurdities":[],"contradictions":[]}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/supreme-court-amendment-rules-no-2-2005","history":"/api/acts/supreme-court-amendment-rules-no-2-2005/history","analysis":"/api/acts/supreme-court-amendment-rules-no-2-2005/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/supreme-court-amendment-rules-no-2-2005/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/supreme-court-amendment-rules-no-2-2005/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/supreme-court-amendment-rules-no-2-2005/documents"}}