Kent v Buckett

The matter of Kent v Buckett was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiffs sought the appointment of trustees to facilitate the sale of a property held as tenants in common with the defendant. The property was being administered in the course of the estate of a deceased person, and the plaintiffs intended to sell the property. The defendant, who was also a registered proprietor of the property, applied for a family provision order out of the deceased's estate under section 66G of the Conveyancing Act 1919. The defendant did not appear in court, nor was there any representation on their behalf. The court was required to determine whether the application for a family provision order should proceed and whether the requested section 66G orders could be granted.

The court examined the circumstances under which section 66G of the Conveyancing Act 1919 could be invoked and considered the absence of the defendant and the lack of representation. The court assessed the merits of the family provision order application in light of the absence of the defendant and the plaintiffs' intention to sell the property. Given the defendant's non-appearance and lack of representation, the court determined that the family provision order application was not viable. The court then turned its attention to the section 66G application, considering whether the plaintiffs' intention to sell the property aligned with the provisions of the Act. The court found that the plaintiffs' application was consistent with the legislative intent and made the requested orders under section 66G.

The court dismissed the defendant's application for a family provision order due to their non-appearance and lack of representation. The court then made orders under section 66G of the Conveyancing Act 1919, appointing trustees to facilitate the sale of the property as requested by the plaintiffs. The orders granted the plaintiffs the authority to proceed with the sale of the property as tenants in common with the defendant, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the court's orders. This decision provided clarity and direction for the administration of the deceased estate and the disposition of the property in question.