Grizonic v Suttor [2004] NSWSC 137

Grizonic v Suttor [2004] NSWSC 137

The Court refused to stay the application for appointment of trustees for sale under s.66G, finding that while there is a serious question about entitlement under the Property (Relationships) Act, the balance of convenience favoured sale of the property, particularly in light of the parties’ Heads of Agreement, the plaintiff’s financial difficulties, and lack of sufficient evidence from the first defendant that an order for substantially more than a 50% share would be made or that she could pay out the plaintiff’s share.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings / Judgment
Outcome
Stay refused, trustees for sale appointed
Legal Topics
['joint Tenancy and Tenancy in Common' 'appointment of Trustees for Sale' 'stay Pending Adjustment of Property Interests' 'de Facto Relationships' 'adjustment of Property Interests Under Property (relationships) Act 1984']
['conveyancing' 'family Law'] ['joint Tenancy and Tenancy in Common' 'appointment of Trustees for Sale' 'stay Pending Adjustment of Property Interests' 'de Facto Relationships' 'adjustment of Property Interests Under Property (relationships) Act 1984']

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 / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a stay should be granted on an application for sale under s.66G of Conveyancing Act 1919 pending application under Property (Relationships) Act 1984' 'Entitlement of parties to share in property held as tenants in common' 'Whether appointment of trustees for sale is appropriate']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused to stay the application for appointment of trustees for sale under s.66G, finding that while there is a serious question about entitlement under the Property (Relationships) Act, the balance of convenience favoured sale of the property, particularly in light of the parties’ Heads of Agreement, the plaintiff’s financial difficulties, and lack of sufficient evidence from the first defendant that an order for substantially more than a 50% share would be made or that she could pay out the plaintiff’s share.

Court Disposition

Stay refused, trustees for sale appointed

Orders

  • ['Geoffrey McDonald and Paul Leroy appointed as trustees for 9 Magdala Road, East Ryde, NSW.' 'Land vested in trustees subject to any encumbrances, to be held upon statutory trust for sale under Div 6 of Pt 4 Conveyancing Act.' 'Trustees authorised to charge up to $450/hr and maximum $7,500; expenses deductible from...