Manifis v Mouzalidis

This case involved an application for the sale of a property under section 126 of the Property Law Act 1969 (WA). The applicants, Michael Manifi, James Manifi, Helen Anastasas, Despo Efstathis and Diane Kassapis, sought an order for the sale of a property at 558 Newcastle Street, West Perth. The respondents, Nik Mouzalidis, Anna Mouzalidis, and Tony Mouzalidis, as administrators of the estate of John Mouzalidis, Anna Mouzalidis, and Tony Mouzalidis, respectively, did not oppose the sale but had concerns about the form of the orders. The court had to decide on the appropriate form of orders to facilitate the sale of the property. The court considered the parties' submissions and made orders for the sale of the property, with the applicants having the conduct of the sale. The court also made orders regarding the net proceeds of the sale and the costs of the proceedings. The court ruled that each party should bear their own costs, as both parties made cogent arguments in their favour.

The court's reasoning was based on the principles consistently reflected in orders made for sale. The court considered the fact that the applicants initiated the application and the respondents effectively conceded the application and agreed to the sale, which was a factor in favour of giving control of the sale to the applicants. The court noted that while the parties were in dispute and there may be a lack of co-operation and disagreements between the parties even after the sale order is made, it is generally the case that one of the parties will have conduct of the sale. The court also considered the need to keep the non-selling party informed and to have the right to challenge any decision which it sees as improper. The court ruled that absent agreement between the parties as to what work should be undertaken and the budget for such work, orders for repairs and maintenance will not generally be made. The court further ruled that in relation to sale by private treaty, particularly in a case where the owners are not permitted to purchase the property, it is appropriate to have the non-selling party notified of the sale price and given the opportunity to apply to the court if they are dissatisfied. In relation to costs, the court ruled that each party should bear their own costs, as both parties made cogent arguments in their favour. The court further ruled that it would be inappropriate to penalise either party with an order for costs.