Law Lists For the Supreme Court Of Tasmania Tuesday, 23 June 2020HOBARTCourt 2, Salamanca Place, HobartBefore the Full Court 4:15 p.m.For JudgmentThe Superannuation Commission vGlenn FrameCourt 2, Salamanca Place,

Case [2020] TASSCCourtlist 771


LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA TUESDAY, 23 JUNE 2020

HOBART

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the FULL COURT
4:15 p.m.
For Judgment
The Superannuation Commission
v
Glenn Frame

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
4:30 p.m.
For Judgment
E F G
v
Legal Profession Board of Tasmania  
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice WOOD
Civil Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m
For Hearing via video-link
Jacqueline Louise King v Neil Patrick Bigg

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m
For Sentence via video-link to Court 1, Burnie
Jay Taylor Ebert

To Follow
For Bail Consent
L H C

4:00 p.m
For Sentencing Submissions by video-link to Court 1, Burnie
H J R

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Directions via video link
Noah Neptune Weiss-Trew
Peter David Leaman
Hayden Kingsley Black
Lionel David Brown

For Directions

Adam John Munnings
Jye Matthew Lowry
Gary Matthews Anmar Elnami
Rahn Marcus Hansson
Sharni Marie Downey

For Plea via video link
Matthew Corey O’Brien
Bailey Dennis Roberts

For Facts and Sentence
Shannon James Duffy

For Sentence
Adam Brian John Hall
Brendan Lee Jones

For Bail Consent
Andrew Brett Bell
Emily Ruth Brown
Lisa Lyn Harwood
David Andrew Thomas
Shyanne Nicole Devine
Tamika Lee Moeakiola

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Associate Justice HOLT
9.30 am
Ruth Howie v Derwent Valley Council & Anor
Leave to proceed

11 am
Jamie Anthony Harwood v Motor Accidents Insurance Board
Originating application/Directions hearing

The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Tas)
Originating application/Directions hearing

Amelia Anne Lovell v Michael Peter Verschuur & Ors
Originating application/Directions hearing

Stuart Norton Woods v Commissioner of Police
Originating application/Directions hearing

12 midday
Geoffrey Peter Tegg v Alan David Gray
Enter judgment

Christopher John Phillips & Anor v
Tasmanian Perpetual Trustees Limited
Revocation of grant of probate

Pamela Finlayson & Anor v Neville Eric Rusher
& Mary Ann Rusher t/as NE & MA Rusher Building Contractors & Ors
Affidavit – Location of documents

Allan Chisholm Swinton & Anor v
Maricel Gaganting Mielke
Rule 414 directions hearing

2.15 pm
Katherine Mary Baines
Originating application/Hearing

2.45 pm
Peter Royston Worrall as legal representative of the estate of
Chandra Kanta Kumar v Rajesh Jiwan as legal personal
Representative of the estate of Chandra Kanta Kumar & Ors
Originating application/Directions hearing

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Sentence
Nomi Lea Mountney

For Plea
Damien Neil Smart 

12:30p.m.
For Bail Application
Jesse James Pearce

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Civil Jurisdiction
2:15p.m.
For Directions Hearing via Video Link
Felicity Radin
v
John Robert Bennett     

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie

Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m
For Sentence via video-link to Court 8, Hobart
Jay Taylor Ebert

4:00 p.m
For Sentencing Submissions by video-link to Court 8, Hobart
H J R

Details
Case
[2020] TASSCCourtlist 771
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Superannuation Commission sought to recover superannuation contributions from Glenn Frame. The Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania was tasked with determining whether the Superannuation Commission had the authority to recover the superannuation contributions from Frame. The Court was also required to consider whether the Superannuation Commission's actions were lawful and whether Frame had any valid defences to the claim. The court examined the relevant legislation, the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (Cth), and previous case law to determine the scope of the Superannuation Commission's powers. The Court found that the Superannuation Commission had the authority to recover the superannuation contributions from Frame and that its actions were lawful. The Court also rejected Frame's defences, finding that they were not valid. The Court ordered Frame to pay the superannuation contributions to the Superannuation Commission.

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.