NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Bhattacharyya v Sarikaya [2011] NSWSC 1017 Hearing dates: 26 August 2011 Decision date: 08 September 2011 Jurisdiction: Equity Division Before: Hallen AsJ Decision: Orders in accordance with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Summons. Order that the costs of the proceedings should be borne equally by the parties out of the net proceeds of sale. Reserve further consideration of the matter and grant liberty to either party or to the trustees to apply on seven days notice. Catchwords: Dispute between parties who were, formerly, in a relationship - Plaintiff filed a Summons seeking orders under section 66G Conveyancing Act 1919, for the appointment of trustees for sale of a property Legislation Cited: Conveyancing Act 1919 Cases Cited: Callahan v O'Neill [2002] NSWSC 877 Ferguson v Hyndman [2006] NSWSC 538 MacDonald v MacDonald [2009] NSWSC 794 Spathis v Nanos [2008] NSWSC 418 Spathis v Nanos (No 2) [2008] NSWSC 470 Tory v Tory [2007] NSWSC 1078 Woodson (Sales) Pty Limited v Woodson (Australia) Pty Limited (1996) 7 BPR 14,685 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Bhaswati Bhattacharyya (Plaintiff) Ali Davut Sarikaya (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: Mr A Todd (Plaintiff) Defendant appeared in person Solicitors: Craddock Murray Neuman (Plaintiff) Defendant not legally represented File Number(s): 2011/258743
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate