Written by 
Informal arrangements between relatives to buy and develop property together can be difficult to unwind if the relationship breaks down. A recent NSW Supreme Court decision illustrates how readily the Court will order the sale of co-owned land.
In Russo v Russo [2026] NSWSC 4, an uncle and nephew, both licensed builders, bought land at Revesby in 2015 for $950,000 as tenants in common in equal shares. They agreed orally to subdivide it and build two detached houses, each with a pool, using the nephew’s construction company, with each taking one house. The subdivision was registered in 2022, but the planned partition never occurred. After disputes over development costs, the uncle applied under section 66G of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) for trustees to be appointed to sell the properties.
Richmond J confirmed that a co-owner is entitled to a section 66G order almost as of right, with the onus on the co-owner opposing it. An order may be refused where a sale would be inconsistent with a contractual right, but not merely for hardship or unfairness.
The nephew relied on the agreed term that each would become the registered proprietor of one lot. However, the Court found the parties had agreed the houses would be the same, a term given effect by a building contract requiring variations to be agreed in writing. Without such a variation, the nephew built his house using a more expensive concrete panelling system, so the term was not enlivened and did not prevent a sale.
Trustees could not be appointed immediately, as section 66G requires at least two individual trustees and only one had been proposed. Two trustees were later appointed in Russo v Russo (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 311. The nephew’s cross-claim for $335,392.12 in unpaid contributions was dismissed, as his records were uncorroborated and many entries were unrelated to the development.
Ultimately, the decision illustrates the limited weight an informal arrangement between co-owners may carry once the relationship has broken down.
