Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Friday, 21 February 2014

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR FRIDAY, 21 FEBRUARY 2014

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
JGJ
ZSS

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Sentence
Luke William Garth

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Wendy Young
v
Joan Miriam Young

(Part-Heard)

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:15 a.m.
Via video link to Burnie
Miscellaneous Civil Business

11:00 a.m.
Directions Hearing
Allanby
v
Rowlands & Anor

LAUNCESTON

No Law List for Launceston

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice Estcourt

Criminal Jurisdiction

9:30am
In Court as In Chambers
For Bail Application via video link
Patrick John Strong

For Bail Application
Paul James Coppleman

10:00am
In Court

For mention
Luke Gregory Marshall
Scott Michael Redman

For plea
Corey Bamber Brooke

______________________________________________________
(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

Wendy Young commenced proceedings against Joan Miriam Young in the Supreme Court of Tasmania, seeking to set aside a will on the basis that it was executed under undue influence. The case was part-heard before Chief Justice Blow. The central legal issue before the court was whether the will was validly executed and if undue influence was exerted upon the testator, Wendy Young, by the defendant, Joan Miriam Young. The court had to determine the validity of the will and whether there was sufficient evidence of undue influence.

The court examined the circumstances surrounding the execution of the will, including the relationship between the testator and the defendant, and the conduct of the defendant at the time of the execution. The court considered the testimonies of witnesses, the medical condition of the testator, and the nature of the influence exerted by the defendant. The court also reviewed the precedent cases on undue influence and the burden of proof required to establish such claims.

After thorough examination, the court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prove undue influence on the part of Joan Miriam Young. The court found that the will was validly executed and upheld its validity. Consequently, the court dismissed the application by Wendy Young to set aside the will. The final orders of the court were that the application be dismissed with costs to be paid by Wendy Young to Joan Miriam Young.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established