Turner v Stone [2009] NSWSC 874

Turner v Stone [2009] NSWSC 874

The Court adjourned the proceedings for three months because the parties had substantially agreed on a program to seek suitable accommodation for the defendant, the defendant had cooperated and agreed to participate in steps needed for that program, her solicitor lacked instructions to consent to immediate final...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Proceedings Under S 66 G of the Conveyancing Act 1919 for Sale and Division of Co Owned Property / Ex Tempore Procedural Ruling Before Fixed Hearing
Outcome
Proceedings adjourned for 3 months to facilitate implementation of settlement.
Legal Topics
['partition of Land' 'statutory Trust for Sale or Partition' 'discretion of Court Under S 66 G' 'contractual Limit on Disposal of Interest' 'adjournment to Facilitate Settlement']
['real Property' 'equity'] ['partition of Land' 'statutory Trust for Sale or Partition' 'discretion of Court Under S 66 G' 'contractual Limit on Disposal of Interest' 'adjournment to Facilitate Settlement']

Source-derived case record

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

Proceedings Under S 66 G of the Conveyancing Act 1919 for Sale and Division of Co Owned Property / Ex Tempore Procedural Ruling Before Fixed Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether proceedings under s 66G should be adjourned for three months to permit implementation of an agreed program to find accommodation for the defendant and enable sale without appointment of trustees for sale.' "Whether final orders for appointment of trustees for sale should be made immediately despite the defendant's reliance on an alleged promise that she would not be put out of the property." 'The extent to which a proprietary right, contractual obligation, fiduciary obligation, or estoppel could provide a basis to refuse an order under s 66G.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court adjourned the proceedings for three months because the parties had substantially agreed on a program to seek suitable accommodation for the defendant, the defendant had cooperated and agreed to participate in steps needed for that program, her solicitor lacked instructions to consent to immediate final orders, medical evidence indicated psychological difficulties such that absence of imposed final orders might assist cooperation, and there was no significant difference between the competing courses in achieving a just, quick and cheap disposition.

Court Disposition

Proceedings adjourned for 3 months to facilitate implementation of settlement.

Orders

  • ['Orders made in the form of orders initialled by Hamilton AJ and placed with the papers.']