Hughes v Sangster (No 3) - [2020] ACTSC 58

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Hughes v Sangster (No 3)
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 58
Hearing Dates:	20 and 25 February 2020
DecisionDate:	4 March 2020
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [28]
Catchwords:	EQUITY – SALE OF PROPERTY – Registrar appointed to sell property after the parties’ equitable interests had been determined – request for judicial advice pursuant to previous court orders – whether the Registrar can sell the property to the plaintiff – where the plaintiff makes no appearance on mental health grounds – where the plaintiff’s costs liabilities exceed the value of their equitable interest – Registrar may sell the property to the plaintiff
Legislation Cited:	Civil Law (Property) Act 2006 (ACT), ss 244, 245 Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW), s 66G Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), r 2802 Trustee Act 1925 (ACT), ss 63, 76, 79
Cases Cited:	Abbott v Pegler (1980) 1 BPR 9267 Hughes v Sangster [2019] ACTSC 178 Hughes v Sangster (No 2) [2019] ACTSC 202 Nullagine Investments Pty Ltd v Western Australian Club Inc (1993) 177 CLR 635 ReDella Franca’s Caveat [1993] 1 Qd R 382
Parties:	Christina Hughes by her Guardian and Manager Warwick Samuel Hughes (Plaintiff) Martell Sangster (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel I Meagher (Plaintiff) No appearance (Defendant) A Nuttall (Registrar)
Solicitors Bradley Allen Love Lawyers (Plaintiff) No appearance (Defendant) Self-represented (Registrar)
File Number:	SC 478 of 2017

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

Following a trial in which there was a contest over the respective equitable interests held in a residential property by the plaintiff and the defendant, on 26 July 2019 I published my reasons and invited the parties to bring in orders to give effect to the conclusions that I reached: Hughes v Sangster [2019] ACTSC 178. On 1 August 2019 I made orders requiring the sale of the property and the distribution of the proceeds and orders in relation to costs: Hughes v Sangster (No 2) [2019] ACTSC 202.

At all times during the proceedings the sale of the property had been uncontroversial. The contest was over how the proceeds of the sale should be distributed and whether, prior to sale, the property should be held as a joint tenancy or as a tenancy in common.

The orders required the sale of the property and the distribution of the proceeds in the following order:

(a)towards the expenses associated with the sale;
(b)payment of 50% of the balance to the plaintiff;
(c)payment of 89.47% of the balance to the plaintiff;
(d)to payment of the plaintiff’s costs;
(e)to the payment of the defendant’s 10.53% interest.

Following the making of final orders and while the defendant remained represented by solicitors, the quantum of the plaintiff’s costs were agreed at $215,000, although there is also an agreement to which I will refer later in these reasons, to accept a lesser sum in certain circumstances. The result of the structure of the orders and the quantum of the plaintiff’s costs is that the defendant will receive no amount for her…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hughes v Sangster (No 3) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] ACTSC 58
Decision Date: 4 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Hughes v Sangster (No 3), the case involved a dispute over the sale of a property that was the subject of equitable interests held by the parties. The matter was before the court, which was tasked with determining whether the Registrar, appointed to sell the property, could proceed with the sale under the circumstances presented. The plaintiff, who had an equitable interest in the property, did not appear at the proceedings due to mental health reasons, and their costs liabilities exceeded the value of their equitable interest in the property. The court was required to decide whether, given these circumstances, the Registrar could still sell the property to the plaintiff.

The legal issues before the court were primarily centred on the powers and discretion of the Registrar to sell the property in light of the plaintiff's non-appearance and the financial liabilities they incurred. The court had to interpret the terms of the previous court orders that appointed the Registrar and determine the extent to which the Registrar's authority was constrained by these orders. Additionally, the court needed to assess the implications of the plaintiff's absence and financial situation on the equitable interests and the process of selling the property.

The court found that despite the plaintiff's absence and the financial burden they faced, the Registrar had the authority to sell the property to the plaintiff. The court reasoned that the Registrar's power to sell the property was not nullified by the plaintiff's non-appearance or their financial liabilities. The court held that the Registrar was still empowered to act under the previous orders, and the sale could proceed in the plaintiff's favour. The court emphasised that the Registrar's role was to execute the court's directions, and the plaintiff's absence and financial situation did not alter the Registrar's capacity to carry out the sale as per the court's orders. The court concluded that the Registrar could proceed with the sale of the property to the plaintiff, as per the terms outlined in the previous orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [28]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.