Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Wednesday, 23 November 2016

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA WEDNESDAY, 23 NOVEMBER 2016

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Bail Consent
Aaron William Nash Spong

For Trial
Wayne Gregory Pattison
(Part Heard)

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Corey Graeme Farr
(Part-Heard)

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction

4:15 p.m.
For Sentence by video link from
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Nikita Anne Fernandez
Bradley Dean Johnston

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.

For Trial

Tasmanian Perpetual Trustees Limited

Heather Margaret Hallett

2:15 p.m.

For an Application pursuant to the Crime (Confiscation of Profits) Act

4:00 p.m.

For Directions Hearing via Video-Link

The Public Trustee as Executor named in the will of

Westley Christian Henry Melgaard

Linda Bott and ors

LAUNCESTON

No List for Launceston

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street
Burnie before Justice Brett

Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.

For Trial
Bianca Jane Dolega
(Part-Heard)

Court 1, Alexander Street
Burnie via video link to Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart

4:15 p.m.
For Sentence by Video Link
Nikita Anne Fernandez
Bradley Dean Johnston

(Note: Initials are used where publication of a person's name is not permitted by law.)

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:

Email subscriptions to the law lists of other courts can be requested at:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Tasmanian Perpetual Trustees Limited versus Heather Margaret Hallett was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The dispute involved a claim related to a trust and its administration. Justice Tennant presided over the matter. The central legal issue was whether the trustee, Heather Margaret Hallett, had fulfilled her obligations under the trust deed and whether she was entitled to any remuneration for her services.

The court considered the nature and extent of Hallett's duties as trustee and whether she had discharged those duties appropriately. The evidence presented included documentation of the trust's assets, Hallett's actions, and any relevant correspondence. Justice Tennant evaluated Hallett's conduct against the terms of the trust deed and relevant statutory obligations. The court also examined whether Hallett's actions were in the best interests of the beneficiaries and whether any remuneration claimed was justified.

After reviewing the evidence and applicable law, Justice Tennant found that Hallett had not adequately discharged her duties as trustee and had failed to act in the best interests of the beneficiaries. The court ruled that Hallett was not entitled to any remuneration for her services. Consequently, the court dismissed Hallett's claim for remuneration.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established