Richards v Withers [2010] NSWSC 1158

Richards v Withers [2010] NSWSC 1158

Because the parties could proceed by implementing the District Court orders, with the next auction treated as the first auction and Mr Debreceny determining the reserve price, it was not necessary at this stage to appoint trustees for sale. The Supreme Court had power to make orders in aid of the District Court orders under s 13 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 and to regulate possession under rule 27.1, so orders were made to facilitate the sale, allow the agent to seek directions, require the Defendant to vacate no later than 14 days after the auction, and require her to pay $200 per week pending vacation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Supreme Court Equity Division Proceedings Concerning Sale of Co Owned Land and Relief Under S 66 G of the Conveyancing Act 1919 in Aid of District Court Property (relationships) Act Orders / Principal Judgment on Expedited Amended Summons After Hearing
Outcome
Orders made to implement and support the District Court sale orders; appointment of trustees for sale was not made at this stage.
Legal Topics
['property Adjustment After Domestic Relationship' 'sale of Co Owned Land' 'appointment of Trustees for Sale' 'court Acting in Aid of District Court' 'occupation of Property Pending Sale' 'occupation Fee']
['family Law' 'de Facto Relationships' 'real Property' 'civil Procedure'] ['property Adjustment After Domestic Relationship' 'sale of Co Owned Land' 'appointment of Trustees for Sale' 'court Acting in Aid of District Court' 'occupation of Property Pending Sale' 'occupation Fee']

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

Supreme Court Equity Division Proceedings Concerning Sale of Co Owned Land and Relief Under S 66 G of the Conveyancing Act 1919 in Aid of District Court Property (relationships) Act Orders / Principal Judgment on Expedited Amended Summons After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sale mechanism in the District Court consent orders had become impracticable or unworkable so that trustees for sale should be appointed under s 66G of the Conveyancing Act 1919.' 'Whether the Supreme Court had power to make orders in aid of the District Court orders made under the Property (Relationships) Act 1984.' 'Whether the Defendant should remain in occupation of the Gannons Creek property pending sale and, if so, on what terms.' 'Whether one or two conjunction agents should assist the agent appointed under the District Court orders.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the parties could proceed by implementing the District Court orders, with the next auction treated as the first auction and Mr Debreceny determining the reserve price, it was not necessary at this stage to appoint trustees for sale. The Supreme Court had power to make orders in aid of the District Court orders under s 13 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 and to regulate possession under rule 27.1, so orders were made to facilitate the sale, allow the agent to seek directions, require the Defendant to vacate no later than 14 days after the auction, and require her to pay $200 per week pending vacation.

Court Disposition

Orders made to implement and support the District Court sale orders; appointment of trustees for sale was not made at this stage.

Orders

  • ['Parties and agent to comply with District Court orders.' 'Agent to determine whether it is necessary to appoint one or two conjunction agents to assist in marketing the Gannons Creek property.' 'Grant leave to the agent to approach the Court for directions or orders to assist in implementing the sale or...