Purser v Purser

The case of Purser v Purser involved a dispute over the sale of a property held in joint tenancy between the parties. The applicants, who were co-owners of the property, sought an order under the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) for the sale of the property, given the difficulties they were experiencing in co-owning it. The respondents opposed the application, arguing that the applicants had not demonstrated the necessary grounds for sale under the statute. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issues the court needed to resolve were whether the applicants had established the requisite grounds for sale under section 66G of the Conveyancing Act, and if the appointment of trustees to facilitate the sale was appropriate. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the applicants' evidence sufficiently demonstrated that the sale of the property was necessary for the protection of the interests of any party, or to prevent waste or deterioration of the property.

The court determined that the applicants had indeed established the necessary grounds for the sale of the property, as they had shown that the co-ownership arrangement was causing significant hardship and was detrimental to their interests. The court found that the sale was necessary to prevent waste and deterioration of the property, and to protect the interests of the parties involved. In light of these findings, the court appointed trustees to oversee the sale of the property, and made orders under section 66G of the Conveyancing Act accordingly. The court also noted that, given the joint tenancy had not been severed at the time of the hearing, the sale would result in the property being held on trust for sale, with the proceeds to be distributed according to the interests of the parties.

The final orders of the court included the appointment of trustees, the direction for the sale of the property, and the provision for the distribution of the proceeds of the sale in accordance with the interests of the parties. The court also directed that the costs of the application be paid by the applicants and the respondents equally.