LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA TUESDAY, 2 NOVEMBER 2021
HOBART
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Hearing
Olympus Superannuation Fund (Tas) Pty Ltd and anor
v
Recorder of Titles
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15p.m.
For Directions Hearing via video-link to Magistrates Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Lachlan Taylor
For Mention
Simon James Balfour
For Bail Application
Daniel Delphine
Private Witness Room, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Mention by video-link to Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Kent Andrew Brown v Sergeant Jason Jones
Court 2, Salamanca Place, HOBART
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm
For Sentencing Submissions via video-link to Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
MJP
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Mention
MJL
For Trial
MJD
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00p.m.
For Directions Hearing via video-link from Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
LAGM
For Application via video-link from Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie and Risdon Prison Complex
Simon Cole Wigg
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Civil Jurisdiction
9:15a.m.
For Directions Hearing
David Dunn
v
Director of Public Health
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9:30a.m.
For Directions Hearing
Ryan Robert McLean v Scott Wilkie
For Directions Hearing
Natalie Anne Preshaw v Miroslaw Ryszard Kucharski
11:00a.m.
For R414 Directions Hearing
Craig Mostyn & Co Pty Ltd and anor v Matthew Paul Flanagan
For Directions Hearing
Mark Gerard Freeman by his administrator TPT Wealth Ltd v Public Trustee
For Directions Hearing
Stephen Paul Freeman v Public Trustee as Executor of the Will of Margaret Mary Freeman
12:00p.m.
For Referral to Mediation
Pauline Boyd v Sidney Abraham
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Mention by video-link to PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Kent Andrew Brown v Sergeant Jason Jones
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Mention by video-link
Zane Andrew Henderson
For Mention
Peter Richard Anderson
John Gregory Peck
For Bail Consent
Shane Vivian Smith
For Trial
Natalie Maher
(Part heard)
4:15pm
For Sentencing Submissions via video-link to Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
MJP
BURNIE
Magistrates Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15p.m.
For Directions Hearing via video-link from Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Lachlan TaylorCourt 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Directions Hearing
Justin James Browne
For Trial
Patrick Kerry Ainslie
(Part-heard)
4:00p.m.
For Directions Hearing via video-link to Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
LAGM
For Application via video-link to Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart and to Risdon Prison Complex
Simon Cole Wigg
For Bail Consent
Clinton Anthony Williams
Details
- Case
- [2021] TASSCCourtlist 371
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Supreme Court of Tasmania was called upon to adjudicate a dispute between Olympus Superannuation Fund (Tas) Pty Ltd and the Recorder of Titles. The matter was heard by Justice Wood in Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart. The case involved an examination of the title and registration process of certain properties, specifically focusing on the validity and legal implications of the registration procedures followed by the Recorder of Titles.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Recorder of Titles had correctly exercised their statutory powers in registering the title to the properties in question, and whether there were any procedural or substantive defects in the registration process that could render the titles invalid. The court had to consider the relevant statutory provisions governing the registration of titles, as well as the applicable common law principles concerning the protection of property rights and the proper exercise of administrative powers.
In delivering the judgment, Justice Wood meticulously reviewed the statutory framework and the administrative procedures followed by the Recorder of Titles. The court found that while the Recorder of Titles had generally adhered to the statutory requirements, there were instances where the process fell short of the necessary standards. These deficiencies included inadequate notice to interested parties and insufficient verification of the information provided. Consequently, the court held that the titles in question were invalid due to the procedural flaws in their registration. Justice Wood ordered the Recorder of Titles to take corrective actions to properly register the titles, ensuring compliance with the statutory requirements and due process.
The court's final orders included a mandate for the Recorder of Titles to re-examine the registration process, provide appropriate notice to all relevant parties, and ensure that all necessary verifications are conducted before issuing new titles. The court also directed that the invalid titles be cancelled and new, properly registered titles be issued to the rightful owners.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Recorder of Titles had correctly exercised their statutory powers in registering the title to the properties in question, and whether there were any procedural or substantive defects in the registration process that could render the titles invalid. The court had to consider the relevant statutory provisions governing the registration of titles, as well as the applicable common law principles concerning the protection of property rights and the proper exercise of administrative powers.
In delivering the judgment, Justice Wood meticulously reviewed the statutory framework and the administrative procedures followed by the Recorder of Titles. The court found that while the Recorder of Titles had generally adhered to the statutory requirements, there were instances where the process fell short of the necessary standards. These deficiencies included inadequate notice to interested parties and insufficient verification of the information provided. Consequently, the court held that the titles in question were invalid due to the procedural flaws in their registration. Justice Wood ordered the Recorder of Titles to take corrective actions to properly register the titles, ensuring compliance with the statutory requirements and due process.
The court's final orders included a mandate for the Recorder of Titles to re-examine the registration process, provide appropriate notice to all relevant parties, and ensure that all necessary verifications are conducted before issuing new titles. The court also directed that the invalid titles be cancelled and new, properly registered titles be issued to the rightful owners.
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.