Starr-Diamond v Diamond (No 3)

Starr-Diamond v Diamond (No 3) concerned a dispute over the partition and sale of two parcels of real estate located in Tasmania. Simone Starr-Diamond, the plaintiff, sought an order under the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross Vesting) Act 1987 for the appointment of trustees for sale of the properties. This application followed a decision in New South Wales, where the parties' relationship was determined under the Property Relationships Act 1984. The court was tasked with deciding whether it had the power to appoint trustees for sale of the Tasmanian properties and, if so, what terms should govern the appointment.

The legal issues included whether the court could exercise its power under the Cross Vesting Act in relation to the Tasmanian properties, whether the plaintiff had been properly served with the notice of motion, and what terms should apply to the appointment of trustees for sale. The court had to consider whether the exercise of its jurisdiction in this matter was appropriate and whether the plaintiff had been duly notified of the proceedings. Additionally, the court needed to determine the appropriate terms and conditions for appointing the trustees.

In delivering the judgment, the court held that it did have the power to make the orders sought under the Cross Vesting Act. However, the plaintiff did not attend the hearing of the motion, and there was a question as to whether she had been properly served with the notice of motion. Despite these concerns, the court proceeded to consider the terms of the appointment of trustees for sale. The court concluded that it was appropriate to appoint trustees for sale on specific terms that were outlined in the judgment. These terms included the authority for the trustees to manage and sell the properties in a manner that would best serve the interests of all parties involved.

The final orders of the court included the appointment of trustees for sale of the two parcels of real estate in Tasmania on the terms specified in the judgment. The court also directed that further steps be taken to ensure proper service of process to the plaintiff and to address any concerns about her participation in the proceedings.