LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA, TUESDAY, 16 JUNE 2020
HOBART
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Civil Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Directions Hearing by Audio-Visual Link
Parliament Square Hobart Landowner Pty Ltd
v Max Tonkin and Hansen Yuncken Pty Ltd
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Plea
Luke Anthony Shaw
For First Directions Hearing via video-link
John Saether
Ty Ferguson
NLW
For Bail Application via video-link
Daniel Robert Smith
Caleb Anthony Paul Woods
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction 10:00a.m.
For Mention via Video Link
Jake Christopher Morgan
For Plea
Adam Roy Triffett
Brett Julian Robinson-Stacey
2:15p.m.
For Sentence via Video Link
Simon Peter Frosi
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Mention/Plea via video link
Brian Nathan Streets
For Application
DCF
For Mention
TLR
NDT
Blake Alan Michael Kennedy
Riley Jason Causon
Christopher Colin Broderick
Nemanja Mrgic
Peter Maxwell Hennessy
Tamara Sue Reeve
For Plea
Kayden John Bramich
AWM
For Bail Consent
Gerard Caleb McDermott
2:15p.m.
For Mention
Megan Jane Dehle
Bradley Graham Chard
4:15p.m.
For Directions Hearing via video link
Claude James Wigg
For Bail Application via video link
Rebecca Janice Cordwell
Details
- Case
- [2020] TASSCCourtlist 694
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Parliament Square Hobart Landowner Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, brought an action against Max Tonkin, the first defendant, and Hansen Yuncken Pty Ltd, the second defendant, before Justice Estcourt of the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The plaintiff sought damages for breaches of fiduciary duty, negligence, and breach of contract by the defendants. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants failed to disclose the true nature of their interest in the subject property and had acted in breach of their fiduciary obligations and contractual duties.
The legal issues that the court had to decide included whether the defendants breached their fiduciary duty, whether they were negligent in their dealings, and if there was a breach of contract. The court had to consider the evidence presented by both parties and determine if the defendants' actions were in breach of their fiduciary duties, if they acted negligently, and if there was a failure to disclose material facts as required by the contract.
Justice Estcourt, after considering the evidence and submissions from both parties, found that the defendants had breached their fiduciary duty and acted negligently. The court held that the defendants had failed to disclose their interest in the subject property and had acted in a way that was not in the best interests of the plaintiff. The court also found that there was a breach of contract by the defendants. The court ordered the defendants to pay damages to the plaintiff, as well as interest and costs. The court held that the defendants' conduct was egregious and warranted the imposition of punitive damages.
The legal issues that the court had to decide included whether the defendants breached their fiduciary duty, whether they were negligent in their dealings, and if there was a breach of contract. The court had to consider the evidence presented by both parties and determine if the defendants' actions were in breach of their fiduciary duties, if they acted negligently, and if there was a failure to disclose material facts as required by the contract.
Justice Estcourt, after considering the evidence and submissions from both parties, found that the defendants had breached their fiduciary duty and acted negligently. The court held that the defendants had failed to disclose their interest in the subject property and had acted in a way that was not in the best interests of the plaintiff. The court also found that there was a breach of contract by the defendants. The court ordered the defendants to pay damages to the plaintiff, as well as interest and costs. The court held that the defendants' conduct was egregious and warranted the imposition of punitive damages.
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.