Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Tuesday, 19 February 2019 Summary

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA TUESDAY, 19 FEBRUARY 2019

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Matthew John Davey
David John Eaton
Daniel Cure
(Part-Heard)

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT

Criminal Jurisdiction

9:30 a.m.
For Trial
Dion Brian Lumley
(Part-Heard)

2:00 p.m.
For Directions Hearing
JSR

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT

Civil Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m.
For Application to Set Aside Judgment
Satchithananthan Chelliah
v
Anthony Di Benedetto & Ors

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
Motion to Review
Kenneth Baker
v
Senior Constable Russell Barratt

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
Miscellaneous Civil Business

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Trial
Chirack Mwanza Kadima

4:15pm For Bail Application
Christopher Todd

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Acting Justice MARTIN
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Trial (Part Heard)
Toby John Della Valle
Shea Alex Gibbling

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Place, Burnie
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00 p.m.
For Directions Hearing
Kayden John Bramich

For Bail Application
Ryan Mansfield Willis Searle

(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 case of Satchithananthan Chelliah v Anthony Di Benedetto & Ors was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania before Justice Geatches. The plaintiff, Satchithananthan Chelliah, sought to set aside a judgment that had been entered against him. The defendants were Anthony Di Benedetto and others. The legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff had a valid basis to have the judgment set aside. The court needed to consider the grounds for setting aside the judgment, including whether there was a sufficient explanation for the delay in making the application and whether there was a prospect of successfully defending the claim.

Justice Geatches reviewed the application and the evidence provided. The court examined whether the plaintiff had acted with due diligence in making the application and whether there were any substantial grounds for defending the claim. The plaintiff argued that there were significant issues with the conduct of the trial that warranted setting aside the judgment. The court considered the merits of these arguments and whether the plaintiff had established a case that met the criteria for setting aside the judgment. Ultimately, the court determined that the application did not meet the necessary threshold and dismissed the motion to set aside the judgment.

In the final orders, Justice Geatches confirmed that the application to set aside the judgment was dismissed. The court found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated sufficient grounds for setting aside the judgment, and as such, the earlier judgment remained in place. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants' costs associated with the application.

Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Tuesday, 19 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established