Anthony Allen Tarplee and Ruth Tarplee v Robert Hayes and Bernadette Hayes [2015] NSWCATCD 15

Anthony Allen Tarplee and Ruth Tarplee v Robert Hayes and Bernadette Hayes [2015] NSWCATCD 15

The application was dismissed because the applicants sought declarations to regularise previous work and to establish that the Hebel Wall could remain where located, rather than seeking orders determining fencing work within the meaning of the Dividing Fences Act 1991. Section 14 did not authorise declarations of the type sought, so the Tribunal had no orders it could make on the application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Application Concerning Dividing Fence Orders Under the Dividing Fences Act 1991 / Final Decision After Hearing
Outcome
The application was dismissed as misconceived.
Legal Topics
['dividing Fences' 'tribunal Jurisdiction' 'fencing Work' 'declarations']
['property Law' 'civil and Administrative Tribunal Procedure'] ['dividing Fences' 'tribunal Jurisdiction' 'fencing Work' 'declarations']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application Concerning Dividing Fence Orders Under the Dividing Fences Act 1991 / Final Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine an application seeking declarations that the Hebel Wall was a sufficient dividing fence and that the applicants had no liability to replace or pay for replacement fencing.' 'Whether the orders sought by the applicants were orders for fencing work within the Dividing Fences Act 1991.' 'Whether s 14 of the Dividing Fences Act 1991 empowered the Tribunal to make the declarations sought.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the applicants sought declarations to regularise previous work and to establish that the Hebel Wall could remain where located, rather than seeking orders determining fencing work within the meaning of the Dividing Fences Act 1991. Section 14 did not authorise declarations of the type sought, so the Tribunal had no orders it could make on the application.

Court Disposition

The application was dismissed as misconceived.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']