Chow v Chow (No 1) [2015] NSWSC 1347

Chow v Chow (No 1) [2015] NSWSC 1347

Applying the Arrow Custodians factors, the plaintiff and first defendant's nominees, Mr Martin and Mr Anderson, were preferred because the plaintiff and first defendant held two-thirds of the beneficial interest, both proposed teams were independent and appropriately experienced, the plaintiff's team was slightly preferable for real property sale tasks and because one of the second defendant's nominees was seconded in Denver, and any possible fee saving from the liquidators' proposal was slim. The jewellery sale should not simply be postponed to the trustees' discretion because of the brothers' tendency to litigate, but the trustees should receive guidance as to a practical sale process.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings Concerning Jointly Owned Real Property and an Application Under S 66 G of the Conveyancing Act 1919 for Sale / Principal Judgment After Hearing on Appointment of Trustees and Method of Sale
Outcome
Trustees for sale appointed; the plaintiff and first defendant's proposed trustees, Mr Martin and Mr Anderson, were preferred. Guidance was given for sale of the jewellery, with costs and final form of orders to be dealt with later.
Legal Topics
['jointly Owned Property' 'application Under S 66 G of Conveyancing Act 1919 for Sale' 'appointment of Trustees for Sale' 'sale of Estate Jewellery' 'costs of Application']
['real Property' 'equity' 'trusts'] ['jointly Owned Property' 'application Under S 66 G of Conveyancing Act 1919 for Sale' 'appointment of Trustees for Sale' 'sale of Estate Jewellery' 'costs of Application']

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

Equity Proceedings Concerning Jointly Owned Real Property and an Application Under S 66 G of the Conveyancing Act 1919 for Sale / Principal Judgment After Hearing on Appointment of Trustees and Method of Sale

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Who should be appointed as trustees for sale under s 66G of the Conveyancing Act 1919 in respect of the four parcels of real estate.' 'How the jewellery owned by the late Grace Chow should be sold.' 'How the costs of the application should be borne.' 'What the appropriate form of orders should be.']

Ratio Decidendi

Applying the Arrow Custodians factors, the plaintiff and first defendant's nominees, Mr Martin and Mr Anderson, were preferred because the plaintiff and first defendant held two-thirds of the beneficial interest, both proposed teams were independent and appropriately experienced, the plaintiff's team was slightly preferable for real property sale tasks and because one of the second defendant's nominees was seconded in Denver, and any possible fee saving from the liquidators' proposal was slim. The jewellery sale should not simply be postponed to the trustees' discretion because of the brothers' tendency to litigate, but the trustees should receive guidance as to a practical sale process.

Court Disposition

Trustees for sale appointed; the plaintiff and first defendant's proposed trustees, Mr Martin and Mr Anderson, were preferred. Guidance was given for sale of the jewellery, with costs and final form of orders to be dealt with later.

Orders

  • ['Messrs Martin and Anderson were favoured for appointment as trustees for sale of the four parcels of real estate under s 66G of the Conveyancing Act 1919.' "Unless the trustees consider that factors at the time of sale outweigh the judge's guidance, parcels A and B of the jewellery should be independently valued...