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.
The following is compiled from public domain information in the public record. ON THIS PAGE IN
REVERSE DATE ORDER: (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 .)
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.
(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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
SITE: © 2012 - 2023. |