Rex Phillip Tory v Sarjit Kuar Tory [2007] NSWSC 1078

Rex Phillip Tory v Sarjit Kuar Tory [2007] NSWSC 1078

Grounds for refusing the order for sale or for imposing the terms sought by the defendant—estoppel, fiduciary duty, unconscionability—were not made out. No unequivocal representation was made, any fiduciary obligation did not extend to an obligation to hold the property for rezoning or development, and unconscionability without more is not a ground for refusing the order. The court granted the application for sale, with provision for parties to set off their share against the purchase price if they wish to purchase.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 September 2007
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 66 G of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (nsw) / Judgment (first Instance)
Outcome
Order for appointment of trustees for sale under s 66G of Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW); application granted; orders as per short minutes initialled by the judge.
Legal Topics
['co Ownership' 'partition and Sale' 'equitable Estoppel' 'fiduciary Duties' 'unconscionability']
['real Property' 'equity'] ['co Ownership' 'partition and Sale' 'equitable Estoppel' 'fiduciary Duties' 'unconscionability']

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 Under S 66 G of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (nsw) / Judgment (first Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the court should order sale of co-owned land under s 66G of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW)' "Whether plaintiff is estopped from seeking sale other than on terms allowing defendant to purchase plaintiff's share at a particular value" 'Whether plaintiff owed or breached a fiduciary duty to the defendant in seeking sale' 'Whether unconscionability provides a standalone ground for refusing order for sale']

Ratio Decidendi

Grounds for refusing the order for sale or for imposing the terms sought by the defendant—estoppel, fiduciary duty, unconscionability—were not made out. No unequivocal representation was made, any fiduciary obligation did not extend to an obligation to hold the property for rezoning or development, and unconscionability without more is not a ground for refusing the order. The court granted the application for sale, with provision for parties to set off their share against the purchase price if they wish to purchase.

Court Disposition

Order for appointment of trustees for sale under s 66G of Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW); application granted; orders as per short minutes initialled by the judge.

Orders

  • ['Appointment of trustees for sale of the co-owned land under s 66G of Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW)' 'Orders dealing with the costs of proceedings as per short minutes filed']