Alexandra Uzelac bht New South Wales Trustee and Guardian v Stevo Ilic [2011] NSWSC 511

Alexandra Uzelac bht New South Wales Trustee and Guardian v Stevo Ilic [2011] NSWSC 511

The plaintiff had satisfied the formal requirements for a s 66G order and was prima facie entitled to appointment of trustees for sale as a co-owner. Although the defendant might have a claim to a share greater than his legal 18% share, it was inconceivable that he would obtain a majority interest and there was no reasonable prospect that he could buy out the plaintiff's interest. Even if an adjustive property order were made in his favour, a sale would be inevitable, so there was no sufficient reason to decline the order; however, the trustees were directed to retain the balance of sale proceeds pending further advice or determination of the court.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Application Under Conveyancing Act 1919 (nsw) S 66 G for Appointment of Trustees for Sale / Ex Tempore Judgment on Summons Filed 3 December 2010
Outcome
Section 66G order appointing trustees for sale.
Legal Topics
['co Ownership' 'tenants in Common' 'statutory Trust for Sale' 'appointment of Trustees for Sale' 'discretion to Refuse S 66 G Order' 'alteration of Property Interests']
['real Property' 'equity'] ['co Ownership' 'tenants in Common' 'statutory Trust for Sale' 'appointment of Trustees for Sale' 'discretion to Refuse S 66 G Order' 'alteration of Property Interests']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application Under Conveyancing Act 1919 (nsw) S 66 G for Appointment of Trustees for Sale / Ex Tempore Judgment on Summons Filed 3 December 2010

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether trustees for sale should be appointed under Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) s 66G for property held by the plaintiff and defendant as tenants in common.' "Whether there was any contractual, equitable, or discretionary reason to decline or defer the plaintiff's prima facie entitlement to a s 66G order." 'Whether possible proceedings for alteration of property interests could justify refusing or delaying a sale.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff had satisfied the formal requirements for a s 66G order and was prima facie entitled to appointment of trustees for sale as a co-owner. Although the defendant might have a claim to a share greater than his legal 18% share, it was inconceivable that he would obtain a majority interest and there was no reasonable prospect that he could buy out the plaintiff's interest. Even if an adjustive property order were made in his favour, a sale would be inevitable, so there was no sufficient reason to decline the order; however, the trustees were directed to retain the balance of sale proceeds pending further advice or determination of the court.

Court Disposition

Section 66G order appointing trustees for sale.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to Conveyancing Act s 66G, David Anthony Hirst of Armstrong Wiley, Chartered Accountants, and Nicholas Crouch of Crouch Amerbeaggi Insolvency, Chartered Accountants, were appointed trustees of the land comprised in folio identifier xx/xxxxx at Seven Hills in New South Wales.' 'The land was vested in the...