Ettridge and Somers (No. 2)

This matter came before Cronin J concerning a dispute between Ms Ettridge (the applicant) and Mr Somers (the respondent) regarding the sale of real property and the administration of a self-managed superannuation fund. The core of the dispute involved the division of proceeds from the sale of a property located at 25 B Street, Suburb C, and the rectification of compliance issues within the G self-managed superannuation fund.

The court was required to determine the terms of the sale of the Suburb C property, including the appointment of an agent, the setting of a reserve price, and the conditions of sale. Furthermore, the court needed to address the distribution of the net proceeds from the sale, taking into account various liabilities and specific adjustments for each party. A significant legal issue also involved the declaration of the parties as trustees of the G superannuation fund and the authorisation for Ms Ettridge, in her capacity as trustee, to take specific steps to ensure the fund's compliance with relevant legislation, including the sale of fund assets. The court also had to consider the future management and potential termination of the superannuation fund.

Cronin J ordered that the Suburb C property be placed on the market for sale by public auction, with an agent nominated by the applicant. Both parties were to have joint instructions to the agent regarding the auction date, reserve price, sale terms, expenses, and commission, with a mechanism for dispute resolution. The proceeds of sale were to be applied first to sale expenses and then to discharge specified liabilities to F Bank, with the balance to be divided between the parties according to a detailed percentage split and adjustment formula. The court declared Ms Ettridge and Mr Somers as trustees of the G superannuation fund and authorised Ms Ettridge, as trustee, to take steps to make the fund compliant, including instructing an accountant, arranging an audit, authorising payments, and selling gold bullion. Upon compliance, Ms Ettridge was authorised to roll out her member account, and if Mr Somers wished to roll out his account and terminate the trust, both parties were to cooperate at their joint expense. The court also declared that each party was the owner of property in their respective possessions to the exclusion of the other, save for the implementation of these orders and issues of costs. All extant applications were dismissed, with injunctive orders to continue until the completion of the settlement of all orders.