Lahiri & Saha (No 3)

The case of Lahiri & Saha (No 3) was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1). The case involved a dispute over property, with the applicant seeking orders in relation to a property located at B Street, Suburb C, NSW. The first respondent, who was not represented, had previously made informal requests to appear via telephone, which were refused. The applicant sought leave to appear on behalf of a company, the third respondent, which was the trustee of a superannuation fund established by the applicant and the first respondent. The legal issues before the court included whether the first respondent should be granted leave to appear via electronic means, and whether the applicant should be granted leave to appear on behalf of the third respondent.

The court found that the first respondent had not followed the proper procedures for seeking leave to appear via electronic means, and that her failure to do so resulted in a denial of procedural fairness to the other parties. As a result, the court refused her request to appear via telephone and denied the applicant's request to appear on behalf of the third respondent. The court found that granting the applicant leave to appear on behalf of the third respondent would be inappropriate, given the contentious nature of the case and the potential for further procedural issues.

The court made orders in relation to the property at B Street, Suburb C, including orders for the first respondent to give vacant possession of the property to the second respondent, and for the third respondent to execute documents necessary to enable the sale of the property. The court also made orders in relation to caveats lodged by the third and first respondents, and ordered that the sale of the property be conducted by auction or private treaty, with a reserve price of 85% of the value of the land as determined by a registered valuer. The court further ordered that the proceeds of the sale be applied in satisfaction of various costs and expenses, including the costs of the sale and the costs of the proceedings.

In summary, the court refused the requests of the first and third respondents to appear via electronic means and to be represented by the applicant, respectively. The court made orders in relation to the property at B Street, Suburb C, including orders for possession and sale of the property, and orders in relation to caveats lodged by the third and first respondents. The court also made orders in relation to the application of the proceeds of the sale of the property, and ordered that the second respondent apply the proceeds in satisfaction of various costs and expenses.