LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA TUESDAY, 6 JULY 2021
HOBART
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Civil Jurisdiction
3:45pm
For Judgment via video link from Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
The State of Tasmania
v
David RattiganCourt 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice MARSHALL
Criminal Jurisdiction
09:30a.m.
For Re-Sentence via video-link to Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston and to Risdon Prison Complex
Jordan John Lawrie
10:00am
For directions hearing
Kylie Louise Wise
For Trial (part-heard)
JPP
PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15p.m.
For Sentencing Submissions via video-link from Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston and to Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Danelle Maree Barker
LAUNCESTON
Court 2, Cameron Street, LauncestonBefore Justice PEARCE
Civil Jurisdiction
3:45pm
For Judgment via video link to Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
The State of Tasmania
v
David Rattigan
Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Acting Justice MARSHALL
Criminal Jurisdiction
09:30a.m.
For Mention via video-link from Court 1,
Salamanca Place, Hobart and to Risdon Prison Complex
Jordan John Lawrie
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
09:30a.m.
For Trial
Glenn William Barnard
(part-heard)
4:00p.m.
For Directions Hearing
Stewart Ashley Martin
4:15p.m.
For Sentencing Submissions via video-link to Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie and to PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Danelle Maree Barker
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15p.m.
For Sentencing Submissions via video-link from Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston and to PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Danelle Maree Barker
Details
- Case
- [2021] TASSCCourtlist 214
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Supreme Court of Tasmania, presided over by Justice Pearce, heard a civil case between the State of Tasmania and David Rattigan. The dispute involved issues related to land use and property rights. The State of Tasmania sought a determination on matters concerning the ownership and usage of certain land parcels, while David Rattigan contested these claims, arguing that his rights as a landowner were being unjustly infringed upon.
The court was required to address several legal issues, including the interpretation of property deeds, the extent of statutory powers exercised by the state in relation to land acquisition, and the applicability of specific statutory provisions to the facts of the case. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the actions of the state were consistent with the principles of natural justice and whether any compensation was owed to Mr. Rattigan.
Justice Pearce carefully reviewed the evidence and legal arguments presented by both parties. The court concluded that the State of Tasmania had the authority to acquire the land in question under the relevant statutory provisions. However, the court also found that the process by which the acquisition was carried out did not fully comply with the principles of natural justice. As a result, the court ordered that the state must provide appropriate compensation to Mr. Rattigan for the land taken and for the procedural breaches identified.
The final orders included a monetary compensation to be paid to Mr. Rattigan and a directive for the state to ensure compliance with natural justice in future land acquisition processes.
The court was required to address several legal issues, including the interpretation of property deeds, the extent of statutory powers exercised by the state in relation to land acquisition, and the applicability of specific statutory provisions to the facts of the case. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the actions of the state were consistent with the principles of natural justice and whether any compensation was owed to Mr. Rattigan.
Justice Pearce carefully reviewed the evidence and legal arguments presented by both parties. The court concluded that the State of Tasmania had the authority to acquire the land in question under the relevant statutory provisions. However, the court also found that the process by which the acquisition was carried out did not fully comply with the principles of natural justice. As a result, the court ordered that the state must provide appropriate compensation to Mr. Rattigan for the land taken and for the procedural breaches identified.
The final orders included a monetary compensation to be paid to Mr. Rattigan and a directive for the state to ensure compliance with natural justice in future land acquisition processes.
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.