Spathis v Nanos

In the case of Spathis v Nanos, the plaintiff sought an order for the sale of a jointly owned property under section 66G of the Conveyancing Act 1919. The defendant, who was also a co-owner, had expressed interest in purchasing the plaintiff's share of the property. The dispute centred around whether the court should appoint trustees for the sale and, if so, whether the orders should be tailored to allow the defendant to buy the plaintiff's share at a price determined by a valuation. The case was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court was required to consider two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the court should exercise its discretion to appoint trustees for the sale of the jointly owned property as requested by the plaintiff. Secondly, if the court decided to appoint trustees, whether it should mould the orders to allow the defendant to purchase the plaintiff's share of the property at a price determined by a valuation. These issues turned on the interpretation of section 66G of the Conveyancing Act 1919 and the relevant case law interpreting this section.

The court determined that it had the discretion to appoint trustees for the sale of the jointly owned property under section 66G of the Conveyancing Act 1919. The court found that the plaintiff's application for the sale of the property was not frivolous or vexatious, and that there were no other means available to resolve the deadlock between the co-owners. The court also considered the defendant's interest in purchasing the plaintiff's share of the property. It found that, while the defendant's desire to purchase was a relevant consideration, it was not determinative of the court's decision. The court ultimately decided to mould the orders to allow the defendant to purchase the plaintiff's share of the property at a price determined by a valuation. The court found that this approach was in the best interests of both parties and would allow for an orderly and efficient sale of the property.

The final orders of the court were that trustees be appointed for the sale of the jointly owned property, and that the defendant be given the opportunity to purchase the plaintiff's share of the property at a price determined by a valuation. The court's decision provides guidance to co-owners in similar situations and highlights the importance of considering all relevant factors when exercising discretion under section 66G of the Conveyancing Act 1919.