JUDGE:	Harris J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	28–30 May 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	28 June 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Li & Anor v Chao
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 371

---

PROPERTY LAW – Orders for sale of land – Just and fair mode of sale of englobo land – Whether appropriate mode of sale is by public auction or expression of interest campaign – Appropriate terms of settlement for sale – Jurisdiction of Supreme Court in co-ownership matters under the Property Law Act 1958 (Vic), Part IV – Property Law Act 1958 (Vic) ss 225, 228, 232, 234C.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr S V Palmer	Oakley Thompson & Co
For the Defendant	Mr S Hopper	Merton Lawyers

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 1

Facts relevant to the proceeding...................................................................................................... 1

The issues for determination and the parties’ positions............................................................ 5

Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in matters under Part IV of the Property Law Act........ 6

Principles relevant to orders for the sale or division of land.................................................. 11

Does s 228 permit the Court to order a sale on the basis of expressions of interest?......... 13

What method of sale is just and fair in the circumstances?..................................................... 15

The evidence as to sale of the Land by auction or expression of interest campaign........ 15
The expert evidence as to method of sale...................................................................... 16
Evidence as to fairness and justice of the auction method of sale.............................. 21

Conclusion – sale by expression of interest is a just and fair method of sale.................... 24

What settlement period is just and fair in the circumstances?............................................... 24

The evidence as to the appropriate settlement period having regard to market expectations and industry practice................................................................................................................ 25
Conclusion – market expectations and industry practice favour a longer settlement period for sale of Land of this kind........................................................................................................... 27
The evidence as to other matters relevant to what settlement period is just and fair...... 28
Legal authority on terms of sale and settlement periods...................................................... 33
Conclusion – a longer settlement period which is more likely to achieve the best price is also just and fair................................................................................................................................ 35

The declaration sought by the plaintiffs as to Ms Li’s interest being held on trust for Yingde 36

Form of Orders.................................................................................................................................. 38

Costs.................................................................................................................................................... 38

Parties’ positions on costs.......................................................................................................... 38
The parties should bear their own costs in the circumstances of this proceeding............ 40

Orders................................................................................................................................................. 41

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

The first plaintiff Ms Xia Li and the defendant Ms Yu Wen Chao are the registered proprietors of undeveloped land in Rockbank in Victoria (the Land). They originally purchased the land in 2001.

Ms Li and Ms Chao hold the land as tenants in common in equal shares.[1] In July 2018, Ms Li sold her interest…

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.

Continue reading Li v Chao

Details

AGLC: Li v Chao [2024] VSC 371
Case: [2024] VSC 371
Decision Date: 28 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Li and Chao are the parties in dispute, which concerns the sale of a property under the Property Law Act 1958 (Vic), Part IV. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue the court needed to decide was the appropriate method for selling the jointly owned property. The court also had to determine the fairest way to settle the sale terms and assess whether the Supreme Court had the jurisdiction to order the sale of the property.

The court examined the nature of the co-ownership and the circumstances surrounding the property, including the relationship between the co-owners and their intentions regarding the property. The court considered the various methods of sale, including public auction and an expression of interest campaign, and assessed which would be the most appropriate in light of the specific circumstances. The court also looked at the terms of the settlement, ensuring they were fair and equitable to all parties. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under the Property Law Act was also a point of discussion, specifically in relation to ordering the sale of jointly owned property.

After considering the evidence and arguments presented, the court concluded that the sale should proceed by public auction, as it was the most transparent and likely to achieve the best price for the property. The court also outlined the terms of the settlement, ensuring they were fair to both co-owners. The court confirmed that it had the jurisdiction to order the sale under the relevant sections of the Property Law Act. The final orders included the direction for the sale of the property by public auction, with specific terms for the settlement, and the allocation of costs between the parties.

Orders