LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA THURSDAY, 28 OCTOBER 2021
HOBART
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Hearing
Nicholas Michael Tusyn
v
Dinesh Loganathan
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Tyler Anthony James Causon
Stephen John Hunt
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
3:15 p.m.
For Bail Application
Corey James Wordsworth
Marcus Wright
4:15 p.m.
For Sentence
Ronald Athol Keating
For Directions Hearing
JMT
Grant Lee Michael Hawdon
Private Witness Room, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm
For Directions Hearing via video-link to PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart
PEA
For Bail Application via video-link to PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Carl Maxwell Hall
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice Brett
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00am
For Trial
MJD
4.15pm
For Legal Argument
MJW
PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00p.m.
For Directions Hearing via video link from Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie and to Risdon Prison Complex
ARJ
v
State of Tasmania
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Trial
Natalie Maher
(Part heard)
4:15pm
For Directions Hearing via video-link to PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart
PEA
For Bail Application via video-link to PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Carl Maxwell Hall
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Trial
Patrick Kerry Ainslie
4:00p.m.
For Directions Hearing via video link to PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart and to Risdon Prison Complex
ARJ
v
State of Tasmania
For Sentence
Joshua James Corbett
Details
- Case
- [2021] TASSCCourtlist 366
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Nicholas Michael Tusyn, the plaintiff, filed a lawsuit against Dinesh Loganathan, the defendant, in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The plaintiff seeks a declaration regarding the ownership of a property, as well as an injunction to prevent the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession of the property. The case was heard by Chief Justice Blow. The central legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff had established a valid claim to the property in question, and if so, whether the defendant's actions constituted an interference with the plaintiff's possession.
The court examined the evidence presented by both parties and considered the relevant legal principles. The plaintiff argued that they had a valid claim to the property, supported by a written agreement and other documentary evidence. The defendant, on the other hand, contended that the agreement was invalid and that the plaintiff had no right to possession of the property. The court found that the plaintiff had demonstrated a valid claim to the property and that the defendant's actions amounted to an interference with the plaintiff's possession. The court issued a declaration in favour of the plaintiff, confirming their ownership of the property and granting an injunction to prevent the defendant from interfering with their possession.
The court's decision was based on the evidence presented and the applicable legal principles. The court found that the plaintiff had provided sufficient evidence to support their claim to the property, and that the defendant's actions constituted an interference with the plaintiff's possession. The court ordered the defendant to cease any interference with the plaintiff's possession of the property and to comply with the terms of the injunction. The court also ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceeding.
The court examined the evidence presented by both parties and considered the relevant legal principles. The plaintiff argued that they had a valid claim to the property, supported by a written agreement and other documentary evidence. The defendant, on the other hand, contended that the agreement was invalid and that the plaintiff had no right to possession of the property. The court found that the plaintiff had demonstrated a valid claim to the property and that the defendant's actions amounted to an interference with the plaintiff's possession. The court issued a declaration in favour of the plaintiff, confirming their ownership of the property and granting an injunction to prevent the defendant from interfering with their possession.
The court's decision was based on the evidence presented and the applicable legal principles. The court found that the plaintiff had provided sufficient evidence to support their claim to the property, and that the defendant's actions constituted an interference with the plaintiff's possession. The court ordered the defendant to cease any interference with the plaintiff's possession of the property and to comply with the terms of the injunction. The court also ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceeding.
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.