LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA MONDAY 12 APRIL 2021
HOBART
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Court of Criminal Appeal
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm
For Directions Hearing
Dean Phillip Braslin
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
11:15am
For Directions Hearing via video link to Wilfred Lopez Centre
SPM
For Directions Hearing via video link to Risdon Prison Complex
Jacob Scott Kevin Riley-McDonald
Dean Phillip Braslin
Alani Povalu Moeakiola
Samuel David Pennicott
James Stuart Walker
For Directions Hearing via video link to Mary Hutchinson Women’s Prison
Skye Kathleen Latham
For Directions Hearing via video link to Hobart Reception Prison
Kye John Edward Charles Louney
For Directions Hearing
Brandon James Smith
Derek Leslie Graeme Smith
James Stephen William Russon
Daniel John Ernest Dadson
Thomas Ezikiel Ricketts
Ashley Erin Moore
Andrew Peter Wall
JAJ
Christopher Mac Hatty
Jamie Ellis McDiarmid
Rebecca Maree Jones
LGB
Anthony John Hepworth
Sebastian Hugo Hartmann
Ryan Jamie Francis Bester
John Spiro Fiotakis
Li Cheng
PJS
PAC
Samuel Christopher Norris
Sean Desmond Hawkes
DJB
Michael Dennis Briers
Peter Charles Anderson
Jessica Justine Abbott
For Application to Vary Bail
Frederick Craig Rushton
For Bail Application via video link to Ron Barwick Prison
Magnus Colby Oakley
For Bail Application
Lilli Marlene Asprey
For Bail Consent
Maryann Wall
Tobias Oddie-Jones
Joshua James Barda
Budde Mitchell Byrne
John Reeves
Kevin John Clancy
Tara Elizabeth Irwin
Wayne James Benjamin
Barrie Linton Arnold
David Ian Coles
Adrian Michael Flounders
SAT
Christopher John Howard
4:00pm
For Mention
Shannon Matthew Pursell
4:15pm
For Directions Hearing via video link to PWR, Cameron Street, Launceston and Risdon Prison Complex
Heath Lance Chatters
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Sentence via video-link to Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Jessie Lee Woodhouse
KJD
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Trial
Aaron James Irwin
For Plea
Steven Craig Murtagh
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice MARSHALL
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00p.m.
For Directions Hearing via telephone
Lily Sara Foster
4:30p.m.
For Mention via video-link to Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie and to Mary Hutchinson Women’s Prison
Jennifer Lee Jones
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
10:00a.m.
For Directions Hearing
FIRSTMAC FIDUCIARY SERVICES PTY LTD (ACN 105 052 515) v John DOURIAS as Trustee of the 60 Barossa Family Trust and anor
LAUNCESTON
PWR, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm
For Directions Hearing via video link to Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart and Risdon Prison Complex
Heath Lance Chatters
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Acting Justice MARTIN
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Trial
John David Clinton
4:00p.m.
For Plea
Georgia-May Smith
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice PEARCE Civil Jurisdiction
11:00am
For Motion to Review
Daniel Victor of the Family Gandini
v
Tasmania Police and Magistrate D Fairley
Court 1, Alexander Street, BurnieBefore Justice GEASONCriminal Jurisdiction10:00a.m. For Sentence via video-link from Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart Jessie Lee Woodhouse
KJD
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Acting Justice MARSHALL
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:30p.m.
For Mention via video-link from Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart and to Mary Hutchinson Women’s Prison
Jennifer Lee Jones
Details
- Case
- [2021] TASSCCourtlist 102
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case involved a legal dispute between Firstmac Fiduciary Services Pty Ltd, represented by ACN 105 052 515, and John Dourias, acting as the Trustee of the 60 Barossa Family Trust, along with an additional defendant. The proceedings took place in the Supreme Court of Tasmania, specifically in Launceston before Justice Brett. The nature of the dispute was related to civil matters, as indicated by the listing in the civil jurisdiction section of the court schedule.
The legal issues that the court was required to address involved potential breaches of fiduciary duty, mismanagement of trust assets, and the validity of certain transactions carried out by the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, in their capacity as trustee, had acted in a manner that was detrimental to the interests of the trust, potentially breaching their fiduciary obligations. The court needed to determine whether these allegations were substantiated and, if so, what remedies or actions should be taken against the defendant.
Justice Brett, presiding over the directions hearing, meticulously reviewed the submissions from both parties and the evidence presented. The court considered the fiduciary duties owed by trustees, the specific terms of the trust, and the actions taken by the defendant. The court found that the plaintiff had provided sufficient evidence to support their claims of mismanagement and breach of fiduciary duty. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, determining that the defendant had indeed breached their fiduciary duties and mismanaged the trust assets. The court ordered that an independent auditor be appointed to review the trust’s financial records and provide a comprehensive report. Additionally, the court mandated that the defendant be restrained from further managing the trust until the review was completed and appropriate measures were put in place.
The final orders of the court included the appointment of an independent auditor, a temporary restraint on the defendant’s management of the trust, and a directive for both parties to prepare for a further hearing to address the detailed findings and any subsequent actions required.
The legal issues that the court was required to address involved potential breaches of fiduciary duty, mismanagement of trust assets, and the validity of certain transactions carried out by the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, in their capacity as trustee, had acted in a manner that was detrimental to the interests of the trust, potentially breaching their fiduciary obligations. The court needed to determine whether these allegations were substantiated and, if so, what remedies or actions should be taken against the defendant.
Justice Brett, presiding over the directions hearing, meticulously reviewed the submissions from both parties and the evidence presented. The court considered the fiduciary duties owed by trustees, the specific terms of the trust, and the actions taken by the defendant. The court found that the plaintiff had provided sufficient evidence to support their claims of mismanagement and breach of fiduciary duty. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, determining that the defendant had indeed breached their fiduciary duties and mismanaged the trust assets. The court ordered that an independent auditor be appointed to review the trust’s financial records and provide a comprehensive report. Additionally, the court mandated that the defendant be restrained from further managing the trust until the review was completed and appropriate measures were put in place.
The final orders of the court included the appointment of an independent auditor, a temporary restraint on the defendant’s management of the trust, and a directive for both parties to prepare for a further hearing to address the detailed findings and any subsequent actions required.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.