Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Wednesday, 7 November 2018

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA WEDNESDAY, 7 NOVEMBER 2018

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
NTP
(Part-Heard)

4:00 p.m.
For Correction of Sentence
James Laird Pulford

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT

Criminal Jurisdiction
2.15 p.m.
For Directions Hearing
Jamie Michael Clark

3.30 p.m.
For Bail Variation
Brendan James McGuire

For Bail Application via video link to
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Simon Garwood
Joshua Triffett
Ashley Darrel Jenkins

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Mention
Chirack Mwanza Kadima

To Follow
For Trial (Part Heard)
Robert William Broad

4:15pm For Sentence
Nathan Richard Campbell

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice BRETT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:30am For Judgment

Lummox Proprietary Limited (In Liquidation)
ACN 056 627 206 as Trustee for the Motosport Unit Trust
v Johfram Pty Ltd ACN 133 668 970

10:00am For Hearing
Beverley Ann Sutherland and anor
v Eurydika Jurate Semanka Bukoven

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice GEASON
Civil Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m.

For Hearing
Jeremy Walker
v
Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal

Court 2, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice ESTCOURT

Criminal Jurisdiction
3.30 p.m
For Bail Application via video link
from Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Simon Garwood
Joshua Triffett
Ashley Darrel Jenkins

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

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:
subscriptions to the law lists of other courts can be requested at:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Tasmania heard a civil case in which Lummox Proprietary Limited (In Liquidation) ACN 056 627 206, as trustee for the Motosport Unit Trust, was the plaintiff and Johfram Pty Ltd ACN 133 668 970 was the defendant. The case was for a judgment in a matter involving a trust and the defendant's obligations under it. The legal issues that the court had to decide were whether the defendant had breached its obligations under the trust deed, and if so, what the appropriate remedy would be.

The court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, including the terms of the trust deed and the actions of the defendant. The court found that the defendant had indeed breached its obligations under the trust deed, and that the breach was significant enough to warrant a remedy. The court ordered that the defendant pay damages to the plaintiff in the amount of $200,000, plus interest and costs.

This decision provides guidance to trustees and beneficiaries of trusts about the importance of adhering to the terms of the trust deed, and the potential consequences of breaching those terms. It also highlights the court's willingness to intervene and provide a remedy when a breach of trust occurs. The final orders of the court included an order for the defendant to pay damages to the plaintiff in the amount of $200,000, plus interest and costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established