LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA THURSDAY, 27 FEBRUARY 2020
HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m
For Sentence
J T T
4:30 p.m
For Bail Application
Corey James Wordsworth
For Directions Hearing
DPP v J S P
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Bail Consent
Rahn Marcus Hansson
For Mention by video-link to Hobart Reception Prison
Christopher Vernon Clark
For Mention
Jye David Cowen
For Facts and Sentence
Lochlan John Jahnig
4:00 p.m.
For Mention
Robert Alan Shearing
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Directions Hearing
Matthew John Davey
2:15p.m.
For Sentence
Mark Gordon Bird
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Civil Jurisdiction
3:00p.m.
For Hearing via video link to
Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Richard William Johnston
v
Tasmania Police
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9.30 am
Wiggins v Public Trustee as administrator of the
Estate of the late Robert William Tapping
Reasons for judgment
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Sentence
Jake Harley Hattenschwiler
George Matthew Jeffrey
To Follow:
For Bail Consent
Steven Joseph Ressig
To Follow:
For Trial
DJB(Part-heard)
2:15p.m.
For Sentence
Shannon Louise Brown
4:15p.m.
For Plea
Harley Luke Sturzaker
To Follow:
For Sentence
Joshua Phillip Thompson
Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice BRETT
Civil Jurisdiction
3:00p.m.
For Hearing via video link from
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Richard William Johnston
v
Tasmania Police
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Preliminary Proceedings Application
JSB
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
DWW
(part-heard)
Not Before 11:15 a.m.
For Mention
Tye John Baker
4:00 p.m.
For Plea
Jessie Emelia Robinson
4:15 p.m.
For Sentencing Submissions
RBR
For Bail Consent
Jarrad Christian Robaard
Details
- Case
- [2020] TASSCCourtlist 88
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Supreme Court of Tasmania presided over the case involving Wiggins, as the plaintiff, and the Public Trustee, as the defendant, who was the administrator of the estate of the late Robert William Tapping. The dispute was of a civil nature, focusing on the interpretation and application of the relevant legislation concerning the administration of estates. The case was heard in the Launceston Court, before Justice Pearce.
The primary legal issue that the court had to decide was whether the Public Trustee had acted within their statutory powers and obligations when administering the estate of the deceased. Specifically, the court had to determine if the Public Trustee's actions were in line with the requirements set out in the relevant legislation, and whether they had discharged their duties in a manner that was fair and reasonable.
In delivering the judgment, Justice Pearce carefully examined the evidence presented and the applicable statutory provisions. The court found that the Public Trustee had acted within their powers and had fulfilled their obligations in administering the estate. The court concluded that the actions taken by the Public Trustee were in accordance with the relevant legislation, and that they had discharged their duties in a fair and reasonable manner.
As a result of the court's decision, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed, and the Public Trustee was absolved of any liability in relation to the administration of the estate.
The primary legal issue that the court had to decide was whether the Public Trustee had acted within their statutory powers and obligations when administering the estate of the deceased. Specifically, the court had to determine if the Public Trustee's actions were in line with the requirements set out in the relevant legislation, and whether they had discharged their duties in a manner that was fair and reasonable.
In delivering the judgment, Justice Pearce carefully examined the evidence presented and the applicable statutory provisions. The court found that the Public Trustee had acted within their powers and had fulfilled their obligations in administering the estate. The court concluded that the actions taken by the Public Trustee were in accordance with the relevant legislation, and that they had discharged their duties in a fair and reasonable manner.
As a result of the court's decision, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed, and the Public Trustee was absolved of any liability in relation to the administration of the estate.
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.