Tate & Tate (No.3)

This matter concerned an application by the applicant, Tate & Tate, for an order for the sale of certain real property, which was opposed by the respondent, also Tate & Tate. The dispute arose in the context of divorce proceedings and concerned the division of matrimonial assets. The application was heard by Nicholson CJ, Kay and Monteith JJ.

The primary legal issue before the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia was whether the court had the power to order the sale of property that was not jointly owned by the parties to the marriage. Specifically, the court had to determine if it could order the sale of property held solely in the name of one party to satisfy the property adjustment orders made in favour of the other party.

The court considered the provisions of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly sections 79 and 80. It reasoned that section 79 empowers the court to make orders with respect to the property of the parties to the marriage, and that this power is not limited to property held jointly. The court further held that section 80(1)(k) grants the court broad ancillary powers to make such orders as are necessary or convenient to give effect to its property adjustment orders. Applying these principles, the court concluded that it had the power to order the sale of property held solely by one party to satisfy the property adjustment orders made in favour of the other party, even if that sole owner was not a party to the marriage.

The Full Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the primary judge's order for sale.