Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Friday, 12 February 2021

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA FRIDAY, 12 FEBRUARY 2021

HOBART

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the FULL COURT
3:30 p.m
For Judgment
Xuede Shi v Scott Wilkie

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
3:30 p.m
For Sentence
Mark William Ransley

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention via video-link to Risdon Prison Complex 2
RPP
Matthew John Davey

For Application to Review an Order via video-link to Protected Witness Room, Alexander Street, Burnie and Risdon Prison Complex 2
Riley Jason Causon
For Mention
Jye David Cowen
Scott Alfred Robertson
Jorden Bird
John Saether

For Bail Consent
Ty Ferguson
Stuart Alexander Ferguson

4:00 p.m.
For Mention
Cheyenne Margaret McGuire

4:15 p.m.
For Directions Hearing via video-link to Supreme Court, Alexander Street, Burnie
SRR

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
09:30a.m.
For Trial
Joshua Michael Murtagh
(part-heard)

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Via video link to Court 1 Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9.15am
In the matter of the Testator’s Family Maintenance Act 1912, s 3
Noreen Yvonne Vanderfeen v Jeannette Mary Richardson
Originating application

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
11am
Adrian Lacroix v Peter Dennis Auksorious
Strike Out Statement of Claim/Dismiss Action

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m
For Directions Hearing
Oliver William Clark
Mark Richard Nicholas

For Trial
Alan Rex Jones
(part-heard)

BURNIE

Protected Witness Room, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Application to Review an Order via video-link from Court 7, Supreme Court, Hobart and Risdon Prison Complex 2
Riley Jason Causon

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Directions Hearing via video-link from Court 7, Supreme Court, Hobart
SRR

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
ED

11:30 a.m.
For Plea
KJD
Jessie Lee Woodhouse
Amanda Maree McHugh

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Via video link from Court 3, Salamanca Place Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9.15am
In the matter of the Testator’s Family Maintenance Act 1912, s 3
Noreen Yvonne Vanderfeen v Jeannette Mary Richardson

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Xuede Shi, the applicant, brought an application against Scott Wilkie, the respondent, under the Testator’s Family Maintenance Act 1912, section 3. The applicant sought financial support from the respondent, who is their son, on the basis that the applicant was in need of financial maintenance. The applicant claimed that the respondent, despite being in a position to do so, had not provided adequate financial support. The respondent contested the application, arguing that he had provided sufficient support and that there was no legal obligation for him to provide further maintenance.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant was entitled to receive financial maintenance from the respondent under the Act. The court considered the relevant provisions of the Act, the applicant's financial situation, and the respondent's capacity to provide maintenance. The court also examined the nature and extent of the relationship between the applicant and the respondent, and the respondent’s ability to provide financial support.

The court found that the applicant was entitled to receive financial maintenance from the respondent. The court determined that the applicant was in need of financial maintenance and that the respondent had the means to provide such support. The court held that the respondent's obligations under the Act were not limited to direct financial support but also included ensuring that the applicant’s basic needs were met. The court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant a specified amount of money by a certain date. The respondent was also ordered to pay costs associated with the application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established