Oliveri & Oliveri (No. 3)
Case
•
[2021] FamCA 242
•29 April 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Oliveri & Oliveri (No. 3) [2021] FamCA 242
[2021] FamCA 242
29 April 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Oliveri & Oliveri (No. 3)*, Berman J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the wife concerning the sale of a property located at F Town. The dispute arose after the parties had previously consented to orders for the property to be sold by auction, then later agreed to a private sale. An offer had been made at the reserve price, but the husband subsequently sought to revert to a sale by auction, citing deteriorating financial circumstances and a risk that the wife's claim might be prejudiced.
The court was required to determine whether to uphold the parties' agreement for a private sale of the F Town property at the offered price, or to order a sale by auction as the husband now contended. This involved assessing the risk of prejudice to the wife's claim in light of the parties' financial difficulties and the potential for assets to be diminished or disposed of. The court also considered the principles governing the grant of injunctions to restrain dealings with property pending final determination.
Berman J applied the principles that an applicant seeking an injunction must establish a real risk of assets being disposed of in a manner that would defeat any anticipated order, and that it is not sufficient merely to show a risk of disposal or diminution of the asset pool without demonstrating prejudice to the applicant's claim. In this instance, the court noted the straightforward chronology of events, including the parties' agreement to sell the F Town property by private treaty for $2,600,000. The court found no evidence of a significantly higher value to justify departing from this agreement, nor did the parties seek an adjournment to obtain such evidence. The court highlighted the significant risk to the parties' property portfolio, including the F Town property, due to their inability to meet outstanding liabilities and the lack of insurance.
The court ordered that the previous consent orders regarding the sale of the F Town property be discharged. The husband was directed to execute the contract for the sale of the F Town property to the nominated purchaser for $2,600,000 within 48 hours, with settlement by 21 July 2021. In default of the husband entering into the contract, a Registrar of the Family Court was appointed to execute the contract on his behalf.
The court was required to determine whether to uphold the parties' agreement for a private sale of the F Town property at the offered price, or to order a sale by auction as the husband now contended. This involved assessing the risk of prejudice to the wife's claim in light of the parties' financial difficulties and the potential for assets to be diminished or disposed of. The court also considered the principles governing the grant of injunctions to restrain dealings with property pending final determination.
Berman J applied the principles that an applicant seeking an injunction must establish a real risk of assets being disposed of in a manner that would defeat any anticipated order, and that it is not sufficient merely to show a risk of disposal or diminution of the asset pool without demonstrating prejudice to the applicant's claim. In this instance, the court noted the straightforward chronology of events, including the parties' agreement to sell the F Town property by private treaty for $2,600,000. The court found no evidence of a significantly higher value to justify departing from this agreement, nor did the parties seek an adjournment to obtain such evidence. The court highlighted the significant risk to the parties' property portfolio, including the F Town property, due to their inability to meet outstanding liabilities and the lack of insurance.
The court ordered that the previous consent orders regarding the sale of the F Town property be discharged. The husband was directed to execute the contract for the sale of the F Town property to the nominated purchaser for $2,600,000 within 48 hours, with settlement by 21 July 2021. In default of the husband entering into the contract, a Registrar of the Family Court was appointed to execute the contract on his behalf.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Civil Procedure
-
Property Law
Legal Concepts
-
Injunction
-
Remedies
-
Costs
-
Jurisdiction
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Reliance
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
2
Statutory Material Cited
1
PT Bayan Resources TBK v BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd
[2015] HCA 36
Cardile v LED Builders Pty Ltd
[1999] HCA 18