Denning and Denning

This matter concerned an application by the husband and wife regarding the sale of their property at C in Victoria and another property at R1. The court, presided over by Young J, was required to determine the terms of the sale of the C property, the management and sale of the R1 property, and various disclosure obligations between the parties.

The court was asked to determine the conduct of the sale of the C property, including who would have conduct, the appointment of a real estate agent, and the terms of sale. Further issues included the exclusive use and enjoyment of the C property pending settlement, restrictions on encumbering either property, and the disposition of proceeds from any sale. The court also had to consider the wife's retention of fixtures and fittings removed from the R1 property and the husband's disclosure obligations concerning financial information, employment, and motor vehicle acquisition.

Young J ordered the discharge of previous orders concerning the sale of the C property and granted the husband and wife joint conduct of its sale, with the wife to have exclusive use and enjoyment pending settlement, subject to maintaining the property and allowing inspections. Mr S was appointed as the real estate agent to conduct the sale by private treaty or auction within 14 days, with settlement no later than 120 days. Both parties were restrained from further encumbering either property, with the R1 property subject to restrictions on entry unless accompanied by an agent of the bank. The wife was permitted to remove non-fixture chattels from the C property and was to retain fixtures removed from the R1 property pending further order, with a requirement to list and photograph these items. Monies remaining after settlement of either property were to be invested by the wife's solicitor. The husband was ordered to provide specific financial information, employment details, and information regarding his motor vehicle to the wife's solicitors. The application filed on 2 March 2010 and the response filed on 4 March 2010 were otherwise dismissed.