Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Thursday, 14 December 2017

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA THURSDAY, 14 DECEMBER 2017

HOBART

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Matthew Alan Ward
(Part Heard)

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Rodney Jeffrey Bailey

For Sentence
Christopher John Worker
Cathy Maree Bantick

11:30 a.m.
For Sentence
Benjamin Lee Noyes

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
John Anthony Curtis
(Part-Heard)

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Civil Jurisdiction
9:45 a.m.
For admission to the legal profession
Catherine Angela Janine Crotty

10:00 a.m.
For Judgment
Benjamin Ray Nichols
v
Julie McCullough

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:15 a.m. via video link to Launceston
Miscellaneous Civil Business

11:30 a.m.
Strike Out Defence/Enter Judgment
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation
v
Carol Fletcher

12:00 p.m.
Injunction
Davey Retreat Pty Ltd
v
Surinder Mahindroo

4:00 p.m.
Directions Hearing by Telephone
Scott Batchelor and anor
v
Frederick Grant and ors

4:30 p.m.
Directions Hearing by Telephone
Jennifer Massie
v
Ulverstone Rowing Club Inc and ors

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15pm For Mention
KPM
Gary Hilton Williams

To Follow
For Directions Hearing
MGR
Andrew Woodhouse

To Follow
For Plea
Ivan James Quarrell

To Follow
For Bail Application
Joshua Luke Saunders

Civil Jurisdiction

3:00pm For Directions Hearing
McGilvray v Key2 Property

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:15 a.m.
For Sentence
Leila Maree Simpson

10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Christopher Colin Broderick
Dane Ronald Pyke

For Preliminary Proceedings Application
JRS
(Part-Heard)
Terrence Phillip Martin McGeown
Samuel Jake Wyllie

For Facts and Sentence
Adrian James Roy Oates

4:00 p.m.
For Mention
Jay-De McDonald

For Directions Hearing
Barry William Evans
Raymond John Pennington
Vanessa Rae Hardwick

(Note: Initials are used where publication of a person's name is not permitted by law.)

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:
subscriptions to the law lists of other courts can be requested at:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Davey Retreat Pty Ltd v Surinder Mahindroo came before the Supreme Court of Tasmania on Thursday, 14 December 2017. Davey Retreat Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, initiated proceedings against Surinder Mahindroo, the defendant, seeking an injunction to prevent the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff’s use of a particular property. The case was heard in Court 1 at Salamanca Place, Hobart, by Justice GEASON.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendant's actions constituted an interference with the plaintiff's rights under the property agreement. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the defendant's actions warranted an injunction to restrain him from hindering the plaintiff's use of the property. Additionally, the court examined the terms of the agreement and whether the defendant's conduct breached any of its conditions.

Justice GEASON, in delivering the judgment, examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The court found that the defendant's actions indeed constituted an interference with the plaintiff's rights under the property agreement. The defendant had engaged in activities that obstructed the plaintiff's ability to use the property as agreed, thus warranting the issuance of an injunction. The court concluded that the defendant's conduct was a clear breach of the terms of the agreement. Accordingly, the court granted the plaintiff's application for an injunction, restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's use of the property.

The court ordered that Surinder Mahindroo be restrained from interfering with Davey Retreat Pty Ltd's use of the specified property, as outlined in the property agreement. The injunction would remain in effect until further order of the court, ensuring that the plaintiff could continue to use the property without further disruption.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established