“OK, so we’re beneficiaries, but how much do we get? "
___
Two former lovers jointly owned a piece of land.
The relationship ended with one co-owner moving away. After a time the other co-owner did too, though not voluntarily. (He was imprisoned.)
The co-owner who left first applied for s66G orders appointing trustees to sell the property and divide the proceeds between the co-owners. A properly prepared application like this will almost always succeed.
The imprisoned respondent co-owner said the orders would be unfair. Sadly for him, unfairness is not a basis to reject a s66G application: [33]
Trustees for sale were appointed.
Our applicant wanted more than a 50/50 share of the sale proceeds. She said that she’d paid the mortgage and council rates and so should get more: [19]
The respondent said he’d made improvements and so should get more: [28]
As it happened, neither party presented a full and adequate case for their allowances.
Making orders about that issue without more evidence would do a disservice to both of them: [60]
A sale was ordered, with the issue of allowances to wait for another day: [64]
