Resources
Citations
Significant decisions that our Directors, Fabiano and Dinesh have been involved in include:
Director of Corrective Services v Nguyen [2020] TASFC 11
Fabiano successfully argued for a favorable interpretation of parole eligibility rules in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. In Director of Corrective Services v Nguyen, Fabiano secured a ruling that allowed his client’s non-parole period to commence earlier, potentially leading to an earlier release on parole. This case demonstrates Fabiano’s expertise in navigating complex legal matters and his commitment to achieving the best possible outcomes for his clients.
Freeman v Cornish Mount No 24 Pty Ltd t/as Men’s Gallery [2019] TASADT 5
Dinesh successfully defended a complaint against the Men’s Gallery regarding a sign depicting a pole-dancing woman. The complainant argued the sign was offensive and discriminatory, but he effectively argued it was a legitimate advertisement for a legal business, accurately reflecting the services offered. They emphasized that the dancers themselves did not find the sign offensive and presented evidence from similar cases where complaints were dismissed. Dinesh also argued that the sign could be considered artistic expression, protected under the Act’s exemptions. This successful defense led to the dismissal of the complaint, demonstrating the his expertise in defending against discrimination claims and navigating complex legal issues related to freedom of expression and artistic interpretation in advertising.
Arnesto v Hickman [2016] TASSC 26
Fabiano successfully argued that the police did not meet the requirements to compel a person to provide their name and address. He argued that the police must inform the person that they are legally obligated to provide the information and the reason for this obligation. This argument was based on the interpretation of the word “require” in the relevant legislation, emphasizing that it implies a legal obligation, not just a request. He also highlighted the importance of protecting the common law right to silence, arguing that any encroachment on this right should be clear and unambiguous. This successful argument led to the dismissal of the charges against the applicant, as the police had not properly informed her of her legal obligation to provide her details.
EC & DT v BX [2023] TASCAT 71
Dinesh successfully argued a case of direct discrimination and prohibited conduct against a respondent, BX, based on offensive remarks regarding the complainants’ parenting choices and gender roles. He effectively presented evidence, including security camera footage and witness testimony, to prove that BX made discriminatory statements towards the complainants, EC and DT. Dinesh argued that BX’s comments were offensive, humiliating, and insulting, targeting the complainants’ family responsibilities and gender. The Tribunal accepted the evidence presented by Dinesh and found that BX’s conduct constituted direct discrimination and prohibited conduct under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 (Tas). This case demonstrates the Dinesh’s ability to successfully litigate discrimination cases, utilizing various forms of evidence to establish the complainants’ claims and secure a favorable outcome.
McCauley v Shepherd [2020] TASMC 2
Dinesh effectively advocated for the reinstatement of Mr. McCauley’s firearms license, emphasizing his commitment to responsible firearm ownership and his genuine remorse for past mistakes. Dinesh highlighted Mr. McCauley’s clean record regarding firearm offenses and his active membership in a reputable shooting club, demonstrating his dedication to safe and lawful firearm use. Dinesh also presented character references attesting to Mr. McCauley’s integrity and reliability, further supporting his suitability for a firearms license. Additionally, Dinesh argued that Mr. McCauley’s past offenses were isolated incidents driven by financial stress, and that his current stable employment and improved financial situation significantly reduced the likelihood of similar actions in the future. By presenting a compelling case for Mr. McCauley’s rehabilitation and responsible firearm ownership, the counsel aimed to persuade the court to reconsider the cancellation of his license.