LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA TUESDAY, 31 MARCH 2020
HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:45 a.m.
For Plea and Sentencing Submissions
via video link to Court 2, Cameron Street,
Launceston and Risdon Prison Complex
Meraki Sharka James Mansell
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m.
For Directions Hearing via video-link
H J R
To follow
For Plea via video-link
Dylan James Shaw
3:30 p.m.
For Bail Application via video-link
Zoe Leanne Whiley
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30a.m.
For Directions Hearing via video link to
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Heath Lance Chatters
10:00a.m.
For Bail Consent
Nathan Lee Weschler
Beau Wayne Kelly
Martin Vivien Sinclair
Stuart Ernest Sinclair
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15p.m.
For Bail Application via video link to Court 7,
Salamanca Place, Hobart
Shannon Lee Burridge
Andrew James Bell
Jack Willem Harris
Kye John Edward Charles Louney
For Directions Hearing via video link to Court 7,
Salamanca Place, Hobart
Victor Kent Park
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm
For Sentence via video link to Court 2,
Magistrates Court, Devonport and video link
to Ron Barwick Prison
Jason Peter Earle
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
12:00 midday
Borg Manufacturing Pty Limited v
John Van’t Sant
Extend Caveat
2:15 pm
ZAB v JWM
Directions Hearing / Interlocutory Application
Terrence Royden Russell v
Christopher Douglas Russell
Directions hearing/Appoint administrator
Paul Glover as Trustee of the Glover Family Trust
t/a Glover Electric v Rossglengary Pty Ltd
Set down for trial
LAUNCESTON
Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:45 a.m.
For Plea and Sentencing Submissions via video link
from Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
and Risdon Prison Complex
Meraki Sharka James Mansell
Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m.
For Directions Hearing via video-link
H J R Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Plea via Video Link
Carly Elizabeth Lyon
2:15p.m.
For Bail Application via Video Link
Pushba Chhetri
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m.
For Plea via video-link
Dylan James Shaw
3:30 p.m.
For Bail Application via video-link
Zoe Leanne Whiley
Details
- Case
- [2020] TASSCCourtlist 122
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Borg Manufacturing Pty Limited v John Van’t Sant involved a dispute concerning an extension of a caveat. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania before Justice Brett. The central legal issue was whether the caveat should be extended, given the circumstances and the arguments presented by both parties. The court needed to consider the criteria for extending a caveat and the evidence provided by the parties regarding the potential impact of the extension on their respective interests.
Justice Brett examined the relevant statutory provisions and case law to determine the appropriate legal framework for the extension of the caveat. The court considered the applicant's need to protect their interest and weighed this against any potential prejudice to the respondent. After evaluating the submissions and evidence, the court concluded that the criteria for extending the caveat had not been met. Consequently, the application for the extension of the caveat was dismissed.
The court ordered that the caveat held by Borg Manufacturing Pty Limited over the property in question be removed from the register, effective immediately. The respondent, John Van’t Sant, was also awarded costs associated with the application, reflecting the court's determination that the applicant's application was without merit.
Justice Brett examined the relevant statutory provisions and case law to determine the appropriate legal framework for the extension of the caveat. The court considered the applicant's need to protect their interest and weighed this against any potential prejudice to the respondent. After evaluating the submissions and evidence, the court concluded that the criteria for extending the caveat had not been met. Consequently, the application for the extension of the caveat was dismissed.
The court ordered that the caveat held by Borg Manufacturing Pty Limited over the property in question be removed from the register, effective immediately. The respondent, John Van’t Sant, was also awarded costs associated with the application, reflecting the court's determination that the applicant's application was without merit.
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.