DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Jandlee Pty Ltd v Haskings [2013] QDC 320
PARTIES:
JANDLEE PTY LTD
(applicant)v
PAUL HASKINGS
(respondent)FILE NO/S:
4072/13
DIVISION:
Civil
PROCEEDING:
Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court
DELIVERED ON:
18 November 2013
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
18 November 2013
JUDGE:
Butler SC DCJ
ORDER:
The order of the court is:
Pursuant to section 38 of the Property Law Act 1974, Christopher Wyatt Neville and Brooke Pugh be appointed trustees of the land and improvements situated at 42 Austin Road, Crows Nest in the State of Queensland, more particularly described as Lot 2 on Survey Plan 195550, County of Cavendish, Parish of Djuan, Title Reference 5065696;1.
The said property vest in Christopher Wyatt Neville and Brooke Pugh subject to encumbrances affecting the entirety, but free from encumbrances affecting any individual shares, to be held by them on statutory trust for sale on the terms set out in section 37A of the Property Law Act 1974;2.
Either party is at liberty to bid for or purchase the property whether at auction or otherwise on such terms, as are appropriate, as to setting off or accounting for the purchase money or any part of the purchase money instead of paying the same;3.
I will hear the parties as to costs.4.
CATCHWORDS:
REAL PROPERTY – PARTITION OF LAND – STATUTORY TRUST FOR SALE OR PARTITION – where the applicant and respondent are tenants in common – where the applicant seeks the appointment of statutory trustees for sale of the property pursuant to s 38 of the Property Law Act 1974 –where there is a discretion to refuse relief – whether the exercise of discretion is warranted.
Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), ss 38, 42
Callahan v O’Neill [2002]NSWSC 877.
Ex parte Einbart Pty Ltd [1982] Qd R 398.
Re Permanent Trustee Nominees (Canberra) Ltd [1989] 1 Qd R 314.
COUNSEL:
R T Whiteford for the applicant
P Van Eps for the respondent
SOLICITORS:
Murphy Schmidt as town agents for Taylors Solicitors for the applicant
Aden Lawyers for the respondent
This is an application for the appointment of trustees pursuant to the provisions of s 38 of the Property Law Act 1974 (“the Act”).
The applicant and respondent are the owners, as tenants in common, of a 52.5 ha property at Austin Road, Crows Nest. David Haskings is a director of the applicant company and brother of the respondent, Paul Haskings.
The applicant and respondent conducted a flower growing business in partnership on the property until later 2008. Thereafter the applicant and Damien Haskings, the respondent’s son, continued the flower growing until January 2012. The subject property was not partnership property and the partnership agreement did not restrict the sale of the property.
The applicant continued using the property for flower growing until September 2013. The respondent currently resides in a house on the property.
The applicant seeks the appointment of trustees for sale, arguing that…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Jandlee Pty Ltd v Haskings 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2013] QDC 320
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the circumstances of the case to determine whether the discretion to refuse the appointment of trustees should be exercised. The court noted that the discretion is not to be exercised lightly and is only appropriate where there are exceptional circumstances. The court found that there were no exceptional circumstances in this case that warranted the exercise of the discretion. The court noted that the tenants in common had been unable to agree on the sale of the property and that the appointment of trustees would facilitate the sale of the property and resolve the dispute.
The court ordered that Christopher Wyatt Neville and Brooke Pugh be appointed as trustees of the property and that the property vest in them on statutory trust for sale. The court further ordered that either party was at liberty to bid for or purchase the property, whether at auction or otherwise, on such terms as were appropriate, as to setting off or accounting for the purchase money or any part of the purchase money instead of paying the same. The court reserved the question of costs for further hearing.
This decision highlights the importance of the discretion to refuse the appointment of trustees under section 38 of the Property Law Act 1974. The court emphasised that the discretion is not to be exercised lightly and is only appropriate where there are exceptional circumstances. In this case, the court found that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted the exercise of the discretion and ordered the appointment of trustees to facilitate the sale of the property and resolve the dispute between the tenants in common.
Orders
Orders of the court
The order of the court is:
Pursuant to section 38 of the Property Law Act 1974, Christopher Wyatt Neville and Brooke Pugh be appointed trustees of the land and improvements situated at 42 Austin Road, Crows Nest in the State of Queensland, more particularly described as Lot 2 on Survey Plan 195550, County of Cavendish, Parish of Djuan, Title Reference 5065696;1.
The said property vest in Christopher Wyatt Neville and Brooke Pugh subject to encumbrances affecting the entirety, but free from encumbrances affecting any individual shares, to be held by them on statutory trust for sale on the terms set out in section 37A of the Property Law Act 1974;2.
Either party is at liberty to bid for or purchase the property whether at auction or otherwise on such terms, as are appropriate, as to setting off or accounting for the purchase money or any part of the purchase money instead of paying the same;3.
I will hear the parties as to costs.4.
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.