THIS SITE IS A WORK IN PROGRESS. INFORMATION IS ADDED AS AND WHEN POSSIBLE. THE FOLLOWING FACTS ARE FOR THE SOLE EDUCATIVE PUBLIC INTEREST PURPOSE OF PROVIDING INFORMATION TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO ARE INTERESTED IN CONTENTIOUS LEGAL ISSUES AND EXISTING LAW INVOLVING THE ELDERLY, THEIR ADULT CHILDREN OR THEIR FRIENDS/ CARERS, AND DISPUTED PROPERTY AND ASSETS.
Disclaimer.

RECENT LITIGATIONS & JUDGEMENTS IN QUEENSLAND (Australia) INVOLVING ELDERLY PLAINTIFFS, THEIR ASSETS, AND THEIR ADULT CHILD/REN OR THEIR LIVE-IN FRIENDS/CARERS

The following is compiled from public domain information in the public record.

ON THIS PAGE IN REVERSE DATE ORDER:
Peterson v Hottes , Taske v Elliott, Field v Loh & Anor , and Swettenham v Wild .
Also LINKS TO Publicly Available Online Court Documents

(NOTE: Where possible, to distinguish the litigant/s from other individuals with the same names, verification information which is publicly and freely available online is provided here .)

 

Peterson v. Hottes

Appeal Court of Queensland case number 3292/12
AND
Supreme Court of Queensland case number 3084/08

PLAINTIFF: D.L. Peterson. 82 years. Australia. Mother of the Defendant.

DEFENDANT: Julianne Heidi Hottes. 57 years. (A.k.a. Heidi Hottes and Julianne Hottes). Tasmania, Australia. Daughter of the Plaintiff.

PLAINTIFF'S APPEAL 3292/12: Filed on 10 April, 2012, by lawyers and counsel on behalf of the Appellant/ Plaintiff.

Appellant/ Plaintiff: Peterson, D.L.

Respondent/ Defendant: Julianne Heidi Hottes.

Appeal Heard: Heard by Justices J.A. Muir, J.A. Gotterson, and J. Henry, 5 October, 2012.

Appeal Decision: Issued 26 October, 2012. Appeal allowed in favor of the Plaintiff, constructive trust imposed by the appeal panel to address "the respondent’s unconscionability" (paragraph 41 of the judgement published at the Austlii law database, link provided below).

DECISION TEXT - QCA292: Link Australasian Legal Information Institute - Austlii.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/qld/QCA/2012/292.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title(peterson%20and%20hottes%20)

(ONLINE THREAT/ TROLL ALERT AFFECTING PETERSON DURING THE APPEAL)

 

PLAINTIFF'S SUPREME COURT CLAIM 3084/08: Filed 4 April, 2008, against the Defendant, Julianne Heidi Hottes, in respect of the house and land located at 46 DiCaprio Circuit, Bridgeman Downs, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; and chattels. Real property and chattels allegedly retained by the Defendant.

Supreme Court Trial: Heard before Justice D. Mullins, 17 - 20 October, 2011.

Supreme Court Decision: Issued 12 March, 2012. Plaintiff's claim for equitable compensation (equitable charge) upheld. The issue of proportionate equitable interest in the property, set aside by this lower court, was successfully appealed by the Plaintiff, see above.

DECISION TEXT - QSC50: Link Australasian Legal Information Institute http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QSC/2012/50.html . ALSO at Supreme Court of Queensland Library http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2012/QSC12-050.pdf
Both are external links. Use your browser back button to return here.

Taske v Elliott

District Court of Queensland - QDC 94

PLAINTIFF: Gladys May Taske. Formerly of 11 Ballantyne Court, Highfields, Qld.

DEFENDANT: Judy Maree Elliott. Lastly of 11 Ballantyne Court, Highfields, Qld.

PLAITIFF'S CLAIM: Funds provided by the plaintiff to the defendant from the sale of the plaintiff's property were, at the request of the defendant, for the purchase of a home in which both would live and that when the living arrangement collapsed the funds should be repaid to the plaintiff.

Disctict Court Hearing - QDC 94: 25 & 26 February, 2008. Heard by Judge Brabazon QC.

Decision: Delivered 2 May, 2008. Decision in favour of the elderly plaintiff. Declaration that the defendant held the subject property on trust and that the original funds paid by the plaintiff be repaid by the defendant to the plaintiff. An additional order was made that interest on the funds must also be paid by the defendant.

DECISION TEXT - QDC 94: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/qld/QDC/2008/94.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=Taske%20v%20elliott

Field v Loh & Anor

Supreme Court of Queensland 1230/ 2006 [QSC 350]

PLAINTIFF: May Field. Friend and fellow parishioner of the Defendants. Deceased.

DEFENDANT: Ngiap Siong Loh and Suray Binte Isnin. Friends and fellow parishioners of the Plaintiff.

PLAITIFF'S CLAIM: Lawyers for the Plaintiff argued that the Defendants held an equitable interest in the disputed property in trust for the Plaintiff. The disputed property was Lot 150 on registered plan 142337 and having title reference 50363926 (in Queensland).

Supreme Court Trial: 6, 7, 8 August, 2007. Heard by Justice J Douglas.

Supreme Court Decision: Delivered 27 November, 2007. Plaintiff's claim upheld. Decision included that the Plaintiff had an equitable interest in the real property to the extent of $223,800 (“the plaintiff’s interest”) and that the defendants' held the property on trust for the plaintiff.

DECISION TEXT - QSC350: Link http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QSC/2007/350.html Also at http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2007/QSC07-350.pdf External links. Use your browser back button to return here.

Swettenham v Wild

Appeal Court of Queensland case number 11135/04
AND
Supreme Court of Queensland case number 6780/03

APPELLANT/ PLAINTIFF: Leonard Thomas George Swettenham. Formerly of Nerang. Father of the Defendant.

RESPONDENT/ DEFENDANT: Rose-Marie Beverly Wild. Formerly of Nerang. Daughter of the Plaintiff.

PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM: Lawyers for Mr Swettenham claimed equitable interest in the house and land at Lot 413 on RP 223343, County of Ward, Parish of Gilton in Queensland - i.e at Nerang in Queensland.

Appeal Court hearing date: 1 June 2005. Heard by Justices P. McMurdo, JA Williams, and J Atkinson.

Decision delivered : 29 July, 2005. Appeal allowed, with declaration that the Defendant held the property on trust for the Plaintiff, and with orders that the Defendant pay the Plaintiff, and with orders awarding costs to the Plaintiff.

DECISION TEXT - QCA264: Link http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/qld/QCA/2005/264.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title(Swettenham%20and%20wild) Also at http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2005/QCA05-289.pdf
External links. Use your browser back button to return here.

COURT DOCUMENTS, PLEADINGS, & TRANSCRIPTS

TO VIEW OR OBTAIN COURT DOCUMENTS &/or PLEADINGS &/or TRIAL OR APPEAL TRANSCRIPTS &/or DECISIONS (Judgements) of any case:

Worldwide: World Legal Information Institute Full text of decisions can be found online via this database which links to decisions worldwide. Searches by name are usually sufficient. E.g. a search for "Swettenham v Wild" goes to the Court of Appeal (Queensland) decision.

Australia: Australasian Legal Information Institute Full text of decisions can be found online via this database which links to decisions throughout Australia and New Zealand. E.g. a search for "Swettenham v Wild" goes to the Court of Appeal (Queensland) decision.

Queensland state: Documents and trial transcripts can also be requested from the State Reporting Bureau in a variety of formats.
For a full overview of the issues in contention, it is advisable to request copies of all versions of the pleadings, including the claim, defence, and reply, and all amended versions of these since any claim was first filed in the Supreme Court, plus all relevant documents that may be publicly available regarding Appeal Court hearings in any case of interest.
EMAIL: transcripts@justice.qld.gov.au
PO Box 15167
City East Qld 4002
Telephone:
(07) 3247 4360
Facsimile:
(07) 3247 5532
8.30 am - 5 pm, Mon - Fri.
http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/about/contact-us/state-reporting-bureau

 

 

DISCLAIMER: This web page is created in the United States of America by a U.S. limited liability company (registered in the State of Delaware) under U.S. rights to free speech and educative reporting in the public interest. One sphere of relevant public interest is that of growing community awareness of troublesome issues affecting the elderly and their assets. This page has no affiliation with the Supreme Court or Appeal Court of Queensland (Australia), the Plaintiffs, or the Defendants. The information above is from verifiable public record and public domain sources only and has been provided purely for educative public interest purposes. The facts posted here are believed to be accurate and current at the time of posting. In providing the above facts for educative public interest purposes only, no other purpose is intended or implied, and no other purpose is to be inferred. No other use may be made of this information by third parties. No other information beyond distinguishing information about the litigants can be provided by this site. Email requests for more information cannot be filled.

Updated on August 12, 2012.

 

WA Management.

wa@wamanagement.com