National Australia Bank Limited v Pasupati [2011] NSWSC 540

National Australia Bank Limited v Pasupati [2011] NSWSC 540

The applicant was entitled to an order under s 66G because the respondent failed to establish any limited ground for refusing the usual order or any serious injustice warranting a stay. The Family Court consent order was not a general restriction on lawful disposal of the property and PMA's interests could be protected; the Family Court proceedings had been unresolved since 2006 and might remain so indefinitely; the property appeared to represent debt rather than equity while the NAB liability continued to increase; and the respondent's renovation proposal was unrealistic and unsupported by evidence that he could fund it.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Application Pursuant to S 66 G of the Conveyancing Act 1919 for Appointment of Trustees for Sale of Co Owned Land / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application granted; trustees ordered to be appointed for sale of the subject property.
Legal Topics
['appointment of Trustees for Sale' 'section 66 G of the Conveyancing Act 1919' 'stay of Proceedings' 'abuse of Process' 'concurrent Family Court Proceedings' 'mortgage Enforcement']
['real Property' 'co Ownership' 'civil Procedure' 'family Law'] ['appointment of Trustees for Sale' 'section 66 G of the Conveyancing Act 1919' 'stay of Proceedings' 'abuse of Process' 'concurrent Family Court Proceedings' 'mortgage Enforcement']

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 Pursuant to S 66 G of the Conveyancing Act 1919 for Appointment of Trustees for Sale of Co Owned Land / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether trustees should be appointed under s 66G of the Conveyancing Act 1919 for sale of the co-owned Strathfield property.' 'Whether the s 66G proceedings should be stayed as an abuse of process because property proceedings were on foot in the Family Court.' 'Whether the Family Court consent orders restricted disposal of the property so as to impede the present application.' "Whether the respondent's proposal to complete renovations provided a basis to resist or delay sale."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was entitled to an order under s 66G because the respondent failed to establish any limited ground for refusing the usual order or any serious injustice warranting a stay. The Family Court consent order was not a general restriction on lawful disposal of the property and PMA's interests could be protected; the Family Court proceedings had been unresolved since 2006 and might remain so indefinitely; the property appeared to represent debt rather than equity while the NAB liability continued to increase; and the respondent's renovation proposal was unrealistic and unsupported by evidence that he could fund it.

Court Disposition

Application granted; trustees ordered to be appointed for sale of the subject property.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 66G of the Conveyancing Act 1919, trustees be appointed for the sale of the subject property.' 'The parties are to bring in short minutes within seven days to give effect to the reasons.']