Hammerton v Gleeson

The case of Hammerton v Gleeson involves a dispute regarding a charging order placed over property jointly held by the third party and her husband. The third party sought to have the charging order lifted, which was initially denied by a Master of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The third party subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court, where the Justice also dismissed her application. The third party argued that the charging order prejudiced her interest in the jointly held property and questioned the legal basis for such an order when only one joint tenant is the subject of the order.

The legal issues before the court included whether the third party had an interest in the action due to her holding a joint tenancy to which the charging order attached, whether the charging order prejudiced her interest, and whether there was any legal basis to set aside the charging order over jointly held property where only one owner of the property was the subject of the order. The court needed to determine if the third party was an interested party for the limited purposes of challenging the charging order and whether the charging order affected her interest in the jointly held property or any unities of joint tenancy.

The court found that for the limited purpose of challenging the charging order, the third party was indeed an interested party under the rules. The appeal and fresh application were dismissed. The court clarified that the charging order did not affect the third party's interest in the jointly held property and did not affect any unities of joint tenancy. It was held that the court may make a charging order over jointly held property where only one owner of the property is the subject of the order. The ruling underscored the limited scope of the third party's interest in the proceedings concerning the charging order.

In conclusion, the orders of the Master and the Justice of the Supreme Court were affirmed. The third party's appeal and fresh application were dismissed, and the charging order remained in place. The court's decision emphasised the distinction between the third party's interest in challenging the order and her interest in the jointly held property itself.