DAULTREY & TAVENER

In the matter of DAULTREY & TAVENER, Judge WJ Neville of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered an application for interim orders concerning the sale of jointly-owned properties. The applicant sought the sale of several properties, indicating no desire to retain them. The respondent wished to retain the properties but lacked the income or capacity to do so in her sole name. The applicant had already made significant financial contributions to joint and other assets, and the respondent's failure to provide supporting documentation led the court to prefer the applicant's version of events and evidence.

The central legal issue before the court was how to best manage and resolve the parties' interests in multiple jointly-owned properties, particularly given the respondent's inability to retain them and the applicant's desire for their sale. The court was required to determine the terms of sale, including the method of sale, pricing, cooperation between the parties, and the distribution of sale proceeds, as well as provisions for default and future procedural steps.

Judge Neville ordered the immediate listing of two properties for sale by private treaty, with specific directions for cooperation between the parties and their agents. The proceeds of sale were to be applied first to sale costs, then to discharge mortgages, outstanding rates (with the respondent solely responsible for arrears), followed by a distribution of $200,000 to the applicant and $200,000 to the respondent, with any remaining balance to be held in trust pending further order. The respondent was also ordered to pay the mortgage and outgoings for these properties pending completion of their sale. Further orders were made for the sale of other properties, including provisions for sale by auction if private treaty failed, and for the release of funds to pay outstanding levies. The court also stipulated that in the event of a party's default, the Registrar was appointed to execute necessary documents, and the defaulting party would be liable for the non-defaulting party's costs.