Waddington v Dillon [2005] NSWSC 732

Waddington v Dillon [2005] NSWSC 732

Because the parties' agreed sale mechanism had not been carried out for 16 or 17 months, relations between the co-owners had produced inertia, there was no agreement on essential sale matters including commission, and delay risked disadvantage in a declining market, the property should be sold under independent trustees appointed under s 66G. The parties' agreement did not prevent the Court from exercising its s 66G jurisdiction while the property remained co-owned.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Claim and Cross Claim Concerning Co Owned Rural Property and Appointment of Trustees for Sale Under S 66 G of the Conveyancing Act 1919 / Judgment
Outcome
Trustees for sale appointed under s 66G of the Conveyancing Act 1919.
Legal Topics
['partition of Land' 'statutory Trust for Sale' 'co Ownership' 'trustees for Sale Under S 66 G of the Conveyancing Act 1919']
['real Property' 'equity'] ['partition of Land' 'statutory Trust for Sale' 'co Ownership' 'trustees for Sale Under S 66 G of the Conveyancing Act 1919']

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

Claim and Cross Claim Concerning Co Owned Rural Property and Appointment of Trustees for Sale Under S 66 G of the Conveyancing Act 1919 / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether trustees for sale should be appointed under s 66G of the Conveyancing Act 1919 for a rural property co-owned by the parties.' "Whether the parties' existing agreement for sale and division of proceeds should prevent the Court from appointing trustees for sale." "Whether the defendant's proposed adjournment to allow negotiations through Mr Dillon should be granted instead of appointing trustees."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the parties' agreed sale mechanism had not been carried out for 16 or 17 months, relations between the co-owners had produced inertia, there was no agreement on essential sale matters including commission, and delay risked disadvantage in a declining market, the property should be sold under independent trustees appointed under s 66G. The parties' agreement did not prevent the Court from exercising its s 66G jurisdiction while the property remained co-owned.

Court Disposition

Trustees for sale appointed under s 66G of the Conveyancing Act 1919.

Orders

  • ['The persons nominated by the plaintiff are to be appointed as trustees for the sale of the property under s 66G of the Conveyancing Act 1919.' 'The property is to be vested in the trustees for the purpose of sale.' 'The orders should incorporate liberty to the parties and to the trustees to apply to the Court on...