Visit Our
Family Law Site
Click Here
Can One Co-Owner Stop the Sale of Property? New Queensland Supreme Court Guidance
Hart v Ng [2026] QSC 209 Owning property with another person can become complicated when the co-owners no longer agree about what should happen to the property. One owner may want to sell. The other may want to remain living there. There may also be disagreements about contributions to the property, rental income, improvements, mortgages […]
Can One Co-Owner Stop the Sale of Property? New Queensland Supreme Court Guidance
Hart v Ng [2026] QSC 209
Owning property with another person can become complicated when the co-owners no longer agree about what should happen to the property.
One owner may want to sell. The other may want to remain living there. There may also be disagreements about contributions to the property, rental income, improvements, mortgages or historical agreements between the parties.
A recent decision of the Queensland Supreme Court provides useful guidance about what can happen when co-owners reach an impasse.
In Hart v Ng [2026] QSC 209, the Court considered an application under the Property Law Act 2023 (Qld) for the appointment of statutory trustees to sell co-owned land.
The decision is one of the first useful illustrations of how the new statutory regime operates in practice.
Get Ahead with Expert Legal Guidance
Trust Aylward Game Solicitors to Navigate Your Legal Challenges
The dispute in Hart v Ng
The property was a 3.89-hectare property at Austinville in Queensland containing three residences.
Jane Hart held a 75% interest in the property, while Tineke Ng held the remaining 25% interest and lived in one of the residences.
Ms Hart applied to the Supreme Court for statutory trustees to be appointed to sell the whole property.
Ms Ng opposed the sale.
Among other matters, she relied on historical agreements concerning the property and the residence in which she lived. She also raised issues concerning her financial and non-financial contributions, rental income, possible subdivision and the possibility of selling Ms Hart’s 75% interest rather than selling the entire property.
The Court ultimately appointed trustees for sale.
What does the Property Law Act 2023 say?
The Property Law Act 2023 introduced a more detailed statutory framework for resolving disputes involving co-owned property.
Under section 33, a co-owner can apply to the Court for an order concerning the sale or division of co-owned property.
The application can seek:
- sale of the property and division of the proceeds;
- physical division of the property between the co-owners; or
- a combination of sale and physical division.
The legislation also requires an applicant to give notice of the application to persons holding security interests over the property within the prescribed timeframe.
Importantly, section 35 establishes a preference for sale of the property and division of the proceeds, unless the Court considers physical division, or a combination of sale and division, would be more just and fair.
In deciding whether physical division is more appropriate, the Court must consider matters including how the property is being used, whether it can practically be divided and whether either co-owner has a particular attachment to the property.
The Act also gives the Court considerable flexibility in determining how the sale is conducted.
For example, the Court can make orders concerning:
- whether the property is sold privately or by auction;
- whether a co-owner can purchase the property;
- independent valuation;
- the reserve price at auction;
- the timeframe for sale;
- payment of sale costs; and
- the terms on which the sale and distribution of proceeds are to occur.
Get Ahead with Expert Legal Guidance
Trust Aylward Game Solicitors to Navigate Your Legal Challenges
Can a co-owner simply refuse to sell?
Not necessarily.
One of the important features of Hart v Ng is that the Court did not treat the existence of competing personal or financial claims between co-owners as necessarily preventing the sale of the property.
The Court appointed statutory trustees for sale and ordered that the property be sold.
The decision indicates that the question of whether a property should be sold is distinct from the question of whether one co-owner may ultimately have an entitlement to an adjustment or accounting in relation to the property.
That distinction can be important.
A co-owner might have a legitimate claim concerning contributions, expenses, improvements or rental income. But that does not necessarily mean that the property itself cannot be sold while that dispute remains unresolved.
What happens to contributions made by a co-owner?
This is particularly relevant where one co-owner says:
“I have paid for substantially more of this property than the other owner.”
There can be circumstances in which contributions are relevant to an equitable accounting between co-owners.
However, Hart v Ng demonstrates that such an accounting issue does not necessarily provide a basis for indefinitely preventing the sale of the property.
The Court treated the question of accounting as something that could be addressed in relation to the distribution of the proceeds, rather than as a reason to prevent the sale itself.
This distinction may be particularly important where the parties have been co-owners for many years and there are complicated financial histories between them.
What about a co-owner’s home?
The fact that one co-owner lives at the property is obviously an important practical consideration.
In Hart v Ng, Ms Ng occupied one of the residences on the property and relied on her connection with that residence in opposing the sale.
The Property Law Act expressly requires the Court to consider the use of the property and any particular links or attachment that a co-owner may have to it when considering whether physical division would be more just and fair.
However, the existence of that personal attachment does not automatically prevent an order for sale.
This is an important distinction for co-owners who may assume that living at a property gives them an automatic right to prevent its sale.
What if the property could be subdivided?
Another potential solution in a co-ownership dispute is subdivision.
For example, one co-owner might argue that the property should be divided so that each owner receives a separate parcel rather than the entire property being sold.
The Property Law Act allows the Court to consider physical division. However, the practicality of that division is relevant.
In Hart v Ng, the proposed alternatives to selling the property were not sufficient to prevent the Court from ordering a sale.
A proposal to subdivide therefore needs to be more than a theoretical possibility. Questions of planning, access, services, costs, valuation and the practical ability to create separate interests may all become relevant.
What happens to the sale proceeds?
The Property Law Act gives the Court significant powers concerning the distribution of sale proceeds.
Section 37 permits the Court, when appointing a trustee for sale, to make orders concerning the distribution of the proceeds and the trustee’s remuneration. The Act also contains specific provisions dealing with compensation and accounting between co-owners.
In Hart v Ng, the Court’s orders provided for the net proceeds to be distributed 75% to Ms Hart and 25% to Ms Ng, subject to the relevant costs, expenses and security interests.
The decision therefore demonstrates an important practical point: an order for sale does not necessarily determine every financial dispute between co-owners, but it can provide a mechanism for bringing the co-ownership itself to an end.
Get Ahead with Expert Legal Guidance
Trust Aylward Game Solicitors to Navigate Your Legal Challenges
The new Act does not mean the old cases are irrelevant
An interesting feature of Hart v Ng is that the Court considered authorities decided under the former Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) when dealing with the new statutory regime.
The change in legislation therefore does not mean that decades of case law concerning co-ownership and statutory trustees can simply be ignored.
Instead, the new Act provides the current statutory framework while earlier authorities may continue to assist the Court in interpreting and applying the relevant principles.
What does this mean for Queensland property owners?
The practical message from Hart v Ng is that co-ownership does not have to continue indefinitely simply because the owners cannot agree.
If negotiations fail, the Property Law Act 2023 provides a statutory pathway for a co-owner to seek an order for sale or division of the property.
Depending on the circumstances, the Court can determine:
- whether the property should be sold or physically divided;
- how the sale should take place;
- whether a co-owner can purchase the property;
- how the sale proceeds should be dealt with;
- how costs should be paid; and
- how outstanding accounting or compensation issues between co-owners should be addressed.
For anyone involved in a co-ownership dispute, the important step is to obtain legal advice before the dispute escalates.
A properly considered application can be particularly important where the property is subject to mortgages, there are competing equitable claims, one co-owner occupies the property, or there are longstanding disagreements about financial contributions.
The bottom line
Hart v Ng [2026] QSC 209 provides useful early guidance on the operation of the Property Law Act 2023 in co-ownership disputes.
The decision demonstrates that a co-owner who wants to bring an unworkable co-ownership arrangement to an end may have a statutory pathway to seek the sale of the property.
At the same time, disputes about contributions, expenses, rental income or other financial adjustments do not necessarily disappear simply because a sale is ordered. Those issues may need to be addressed separately when determining how the proceeds should ultimately be distributed.
Get Ahead with Expert Legal Guidance
Trust Aylward Game Solicitors to Navigate Your Legal Challenges
How Aylward Game Solicitors can assist
If you jointly own property and cannot agree with the other owner about whether the property should be sold, subdivided or retained, obtaining legal advice early can help clarify your options and avoid unnecessary escalation.
Aylward Game Solicitors can assist with Queensland property disputes, co-ownership issues, property litigation and applications under the Property Law Act 2023. We can provide advice on your rights and available options and assist you in taking the appropriate steps to resolve the dispute. Contact Aylward Game Solicitors today to arrange a consultation.
Was this article helpful?
YesNo
SHARE THIS