The Court held that where co-owners are entitled to allowances for improvements increasing land value and joint debt payments following a s 66G appointment, the accounting should proceed under direct Court supervision rather than by the trustees for sale or a referee, particularly where oral evidence of disbursements (without supporting documents) will be required. On costs, the Court declined to apportion costs between the statement of claim and cross-claim on a percentage basis, holding that where there was no overlap between the issues, the costs of each should be separately assessed; costs of the s 66G application were ordered to be borne equally from proceeds of sale, while the unsuccessful cross-claimant's share bore the other party's costs of the cross-claim. The late abandonment of a damages claim was held to have caused only negligible wasted costs.
The full text is available to signed-in members.