The applicant sought specific performance to purchase a jointly owned property or, alternatively, an order for sale under the Partition Act.
The core dispute revolved around the enforceability and proper exercise of a right of first refusal clause in an agreement between the parties.
The court found that specific performance was not appropriate as damages would be an adequate remedy.
Crucially, the court determined that the right of first refusal was not properly exercised by either party due to lack of good faith and failure to follow the agreed-upon valuation mechanism.
Consequently, the parties remained joint owners until the property's eventual sale, and the net proceeds are to be shared equally, subject to an accounting for expenses and income.
