Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Friday 5 March 2021

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA FRIDAY 5 MARCH 2021

HOBART

Court 1, Salamanca Place, HobartBefore the FULL COURT OF APPEAL
10:00a.m
TT Line Company Pty Ltd (ACN 061 996 174)
v
Rae Burrows

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Sentencing Submissions
Belinda Elizabeth Dobson

Court 7, Salamanca Place, HobartBefore Justice GEASONCriminal Jurisdiction9:30amFor Bail Application via video link to Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston Nathan Baden Roy Whelan

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00pm
For Sentencing Submissions
John Maxwell James Tatnell

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9:15a.m. via video link to Supreme Court, Alexander Street, Burnie
For Directions Hearing
Tracey Lee BLOCKI v GABRIELE ANN HANSEN

For Directions Hearing
Allan Francis WILLIAMS and Jennifer WILLIAMS v Allan Francis WILLIAMS
and Patricia Lynette DEEGAN as Executors of the estate of EVA
GERALDINE WILLIAMS

For Directions Hearing
PERMANENT CUSTODIANS LIMITED v Tanya Maree MCKINNELL
11:00a.m.
For Directions Hearing
Dean RICHARDS v Steven TSIAKIS

12:00p.m.
For Directions Hearing via Telephone
Dong Jo SHIN and anor v Yong Tae CHO and anor

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston Before Justice GEASONCriminal Jurisdiction9:30amFor Bail Application via video link from Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart Nathan Baden Roy Whelan

BURNIE

Supreme Court, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9:15a.m. via video link to Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
For Directions Hearing
Tracey Lee BLOCKI v GABRIELE ANN HANSEN

For Directions Hearing
Allan Francis WILLIAMS and Jennifer WILLIAMS v Allan Francis WILLIAMS
and Patricia Lynette DEEGAN as Executors of the estate of EVA
GERALDINE WILLIAMS

For Directions Hearing
PERMANENT CUSTODIANS LIMITED v Tanya Maree MCKINNELL

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Associate Justice Holt presided over a case concerning the Permanent Custodians Limited versus Tanya Maree McKinnell. The dispute revolved around the rights and obligations of the parties under a lease agreement, with specific emphasis on the terms of termination and the responsibilities of the lessee. The court was tasked with interpreting the contractual language and determining whether the lessor had valid grounds to terminate the lease based on the lessee's alleged breaches. This case underscored the importance of clear contractual terms and the necessity for both parties to adhere to their respective obligations.

The primary legal issue before the court was the interpretation of the lease agreement, particularly the clauses relating to termination and the conditions under which the lessor could lawfully terminate the lease. The court had to consider whether the lessee's actions constituted a breach severe enough to warrant termination and whether the lessor followed the proper procedures as stipulated in the lease. Furthermore, the court needed to assess if the lessee's actions indeed breached the terms of the lease and if the lessor's termination was justified under those circumstances.

After a thorough analysis of the lease agreement and the evidence presented, Associate Justice Holt concluded that the lessee had indeed breached the terms of the lease, and the lessor had valid grounds for termination. The court emphasised the importance of both parties adhering to the contractual terms and highlighted that the lessor had followed the proper procedures as outlined in the lease agreement. Consequently, the court upheld the lessor's right to terminate the lease, finding that the lessee's actions warranted such action. The decision reinforced the principle that contractual obligations must be strictly adhered to, and any breaches must be addressed according to the agreed terms.

The court's final orders confirmed the validity of the lessor's termination of the lease and directed the lessee to vacate the premises within the specified timeframe. The court also ordered the lessee to pay any outstanding rent and damages as stipulated in the lease agreement. This ruling served as a reminder of the importance of contractual clarity and the need for both parties to fulfil their obligations under the terms of the lease.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established