Reljic v Reljic - [2025] ACTSC 198

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Reljic v Reljic
Citation:	[2025] ACTSC 198
Hearing Date:	1 May 2025
Decision Date:	14 May 2025
Before:	McWilliam J
Decision:	Orders made for sale of jointly owned asset with costs of application payable from proceeds of sale.
Catchwords:	PROPERTY – sale of real property and consequential orders pursuant to Civil Law (Property) Act 2006 (ACT), s 244 – sale by consent COSTS – application by plaintiffs for defendant to pay the costs of the proceeding – where consent orders agreed shortly before hearing of previously contested application – whether each party acted reasonably – whether legal costs should be paid from the proceeds of sale
Legislation Cited:	Civil Law (Property) Act 2006 (ACT) ss 244, 245 Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) rr 1721(1), 2015, 2451
Cases Cited:	Clarkson Williams Partners Pty Ltd v Vaughan (No 2) [2016] ACTCA 8 EMI Songs Australia Pty Ltd v Larrikin Music Publishing Pty Ltd [2011] FCAFC 92 Gray v Richards (No 2) [2014] HCA 47; 89 ALJR 113 Kardos v Sarbutt (No. 2) [2006] NSWCA 206 Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11; 193 CLR 72 Re Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs; Ex ParteLai Qin [1997] HCA 6; 186 CLR 622 Wu v Wu (No 3) [2024] ACTCA 35
Parties:	Darko Reljic (First Plaintiff) Ahn Hien Phuong Hoang (Second Plaintiff) Bogdana Reljic ( Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel D Robens ( First and Second Plaintiffs) D Moujalli with K Fox ( Defendant)
Solicitors Eastwoods Legal ( First and Second Plaintiffs) Alexander Rashidi Lawyers ( Defendant)
File Number:	SC 299 of 2024

McWILLIAM J:

1․The parties to this dispute are family members who jointly own a residential house in Dickson (the Property). The first and second plaintiffs are husband and wife respectively. The defendant is the first plaintiff’s mother and the second plaintiff’s mother-in-law. The parties jointly purchased the Property in 2021 and lived together in the Property for a short time. The family relationship then broke down, which resulted in the first and second plaintiffs moving out of the Property in early 2024. To facilitate the separation of their living arrangements, the parties have decided to sell the Property and use the proceeds of sale towards the purchase of separate dwellings or alternative rental accommodation.

Remaining dispute for resolution by the court

2․The plaintiffs initially sought the sale of the Property on certain conditions which were not acceptable to the defendant. An application was then filed seeking a court order for sale, pursuant to s 244 of the Civil Law (Property) Act 2006 (ACT) (Property Act).
3․However, by the time of the hearing of the application on 1 May 2025, the parties had reached a resolution of all issues concerning the sale of the Property, save as for the question of the costs of the proceeding. Accordingly, that is the only dispute remaining for resolution by the court, with the orders for sale to be made…

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 Reljic v Reljic

Details

AGLC: Reljic v Reljic [2025] ACTSC 198
Case: [2025] ACTSC 198
Decision Date: 14 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Reljic v Reljic involved a dispute over the sale of jointly owned real property. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The plaintiffs sought to sell the jointly owned property under section 244 of the Civil Law (Property) Act 2006 (ACT). This section provides for the sale of real property by consent, allowing the court to make orders for the sale when the parties agree. The plaintiffs also applied for the defendant to pay the costs of the proceeding, which had been contested until shortly before the hearing when consent orders were agreed.

The court was required to determine whether the plaintiffs' application for costs was reasonable, given that the parties had reached an agreement shortly before the hearing. The court also needed to consider whether the legal costs should be paid from the proceeds of the sale, as requested by the plaintiffs. The reasoning of the court focused on the conduct of both parties throughout the proceedings and the timing of the consent orders.

The court found that both parties had acted reasonably in reaching the consent orders. Given that the orders were agreed upon shortly before the hearing, the court considered it reasonable for the plaintiffs to seek costs from the defendant. The court also determined that the legal costs should be paid from the proceeds of the sale, as this was the fairest outcome given the circumstances of the case. The court's decision was based on the principle that the party who has unreasonably prolonged the proceedings should bear the costs.

The court made orders for the sale of the jointly owned property and directed that the costs of the application be payable from the proceeds of the sale. This outcome ensured that the financial burden of the litigation was appropriately allocated between the parties, reflecting the court's assessment of their respective conduct.

Orders

Orders of the court

Orders made for sale of jointly owned asset with costs of application payable from proceeds of sale.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.