Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Pty Ltd v Donnelly

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Pty Ltd commenced proceedings against two defendants, seeking orders for the judicial sale of a property. The first defendant was a judgment creditor of the plaintiff, while the second defendant was a co-owner of the property. The second defendant argued that the plaintiff's claim should be dismissed as it was not against her. The court was required to determine whether severance of the jointure was necessary and whether an order for judicial sale should be made, considering the second defendant's arguable defence and incomplete evidence.

The court considered the legal principles and context of the case, including the second defendant's arguable defence and the incomplete evidence. The court held that severance of the jointure was not necessary as the second defendant had an arguable defence. The court also noted that the situation was analogous to summary judgment, where the second defendant would have had the opportunity to respond to the plaintiff's claim. The court found it unjust to the second defendant to make an order for judicial sale without her having the opportunity to respond.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for orders for judicial sale of the property. The court held that it was unjust to the second defendant to make an order for judicial sale without her having the opportunity to respond to the plaintiff's claim. The court also noted that the second defendant had an arguable defence and that the evidence was incomplete. The court held that it was not appropriate to make an order for judicial sale in these circumstances.