Chow v Chow (No 1) [2015] NSWSC 1347

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Chow v Chow (No 1) [2015] NSWSC 1347 Hearing dates: 1 September 2015 Date of orders: 18 September 2015 Decision date: 18 September 2015 Jurisdiction: Equity Before: Young AJA Decision: Trustees for sale appointed Catchwords: REAL PROPERTY – jointly owned property – application under Section 66G of Conveyancing Act 1919 for sale – dispute as to who should be trustees – how resolved – Arrow Custodians Pty Limited v Pine Forests of Australia Pty Limited [2006] NSWSC 341 Legislation Cited: Conveyancing Act, 1919 (NSW) ss36A, 66G, 66H, 66I Cases Cited: Arrow Custodians Pty Limited v Pine Forests of Australia Pty Limited [2006] NSWSC 341 Dalrymple v Melville (1932) 32 SR (NSW) 596 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Chow Kwok Chi - plaintiff Chow Kwok Chuen – first defendant Chow Kwok Ching – second defendant Jack Thomas – third defendant (submitting appearance) Representation: Counsel: P H Blackburn-Hart SC with Ms D Tucker – for the plaintiff S O'Brien – for the first defendant M Walton SC with M W Sneddon – for the second defendant

Solicitors: Arnold Bloch Leibler – for the plaintiff Hicksons Lawyers – for the first defendant Ashurst Australia Lawyers – for the second defendant File Number(s): 2015/129833

Judgment 1. The present proceedings involve a dispute in relatively small compass that has arisen amongst three brothers, who are the sons of the late Grace Chow who died on 1 December 2002. Probate of her will was granted to the three brothers on 27 September 2004 together with the third defendant who has filed a submitting appearance. The estate of Grace Chow is now fully administered. There remains in the estate a property at Darling Point. There are also in the estate three other parcels of real estate which are now co-owned by the three brothers, which I will refer to as Wentworth Avenue, a property containing two units, a Yeo Street property containing eight units and a Mosman property containing two units. Thus, there are four parcels of real estate which are involved in this current dispute. There is also a parcel of jewellery owned by the late Grace Chow. That parcel of jewellery has a value of approximately half a million dollars. Of that half a million dollars, one item is estimated as having a value of or at least a maximum value of about $350,000 and another $120,000, and there is somewhere between $30,000 and $100,000 worth of what I can irreverently call bits and pieces. 2. The brothers are, to a great degree, agreed that all four parcels of real estate and the jewellery should be sold and a distribution should be made. However, there are four matters on which there is dispute and which I have to resolve. These are: (a) whilst it is agreed that orders should be made under Section 66G of the Conveyancing Act 1919 in respect of the four parcels of real estate, there is no agreement as to who should be the trustees, and the plaintiff and the first defendant on the one hand and the second defendant on the other hand have put forward counter proposals. 3. Item (A) for decision is as to who should be the trustees to be appointed under Section 66G; item (B) is how should the jewellery be sold; item (C) is how should the costs of the present application be borne; and item (D) is what is the appropriate form of the orders. I will not deal with (C) until I have given my decision on (A) and (B), which will happen shortly. Then I will hear submissions on (C) and decide the point, then stand the matter over for short minutes to be brought in in due course because the orders may be very complicated. I will deal with (D) at a later date.