SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR FRIDAY, 27 FEBRUARY 2015
HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Plea
Robert Frederick Bowden
Michael Anglin
Jassy Anglin
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
QMT
For Application to Review a Probation Order
TDT
For Application to Review a Suspended Sentence
Corey Ronald Lomas
For Sentence
Adam Savill
Luke Steven Brearley
For Directions Hearing
Jamie Reginald Hall
For Plea in Mitigation
Craig John Wilson
2:15 p.m.
For Sentence
Fabian James Ackerley Trueman
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m.
For Hearing via videolink to Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Marisa Cairns
v
Sharon Lesley Stringer
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Civil Jurisdiction
9:45a.m.
For Decision
Tasmanian Perpetual Trustees as Personal Representative of the Estate of Charles Herbert Tolman
v
Ramritu & Ors
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Brodie McCrostie
v
Constable Jason Shaun Lyons and Ors
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
Injunction/Stay Order
United Terminal Bell Bay Pty Ltd
v
Resource Management Planning Appeal Tribunal
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
2:15pm For Hearing via video-link from Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Marisa Cairns
v
Sharon Lesley Stringer
BURNIE
No law list for Burnie.
______________________________________________________
(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:
- AGLC
- Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Friday, 27 February 2015 [2015] TASSCCourtlist 33
- Case
- [2015] TASSCCourtlist 33
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court pertain to the interpretation of the estate's will, the fiduciary duties of the personal representatives, and the validity of certain claims against the estate. Justice ESTCOURT was tasked with determining whether the defendants, Ramritu and others, had valid claims that should be honoured from the estate. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the estate was managed in accordance with the legal and fiduciary obligations placed upon the personal representatives. The outcome of this decision will have significant implications for the distribution of assets and the resolution of any disputes among potential beneficiaries.
In its decision, Justice ESTCOURT addressed the specific claims made by the defendants, evaluating the evidence and legal arguments presented. The court determined that certain claims were unfounded and not supported by the will or applicable law, while others required further substantiation. The ruling clarified the rights and obligations of the parties involved, providing a resolution to the disputes over the estate. The final orders from the court will direct the personal representatives on how to proceed with the distribution of the estate, ensuring that the wishes of the deceased, as expressed in the will, are honoured in accordance with the law.
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.