Mao v Li [2022] NSWCATAP 101

Mao v Li [2022] NSWCATAP 101

The appellants identified no question of law and failed to show any basis for leave to appeal: the Tribunal's finding that the fences were sufficient was open on the evidence, the complaints about 2008 Local Court matters and the $275 money order provided no substance for an appeal, the asserted privacy and design issues were not shown to warrant intervention, and the alleged new evidence consisted of documents available from the 2008 proceedings. Although the Notice of Appeal was filed six days late, the respondents did not oppose an extension, so time was extended and leave to appeal was refused with the appeal otherwise dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal From a Decision of the Consumer and Commercial Division of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal Concerning Orders Under the Dividing Fences Act 1991 (nsw) / Appeal Panel Determination on the Papers; Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Considered
Outcome
Time for filing the Notice of Appeal extended; leave to appeal refused; appeal otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'questions of Law' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice' 'sufficiency of Dividing Fence' 'extension of Time' 'new Evidence on Appeal']
['civil Procedure' 'administrative Law' 'neighbour Disputes' 'dividing Fences'] ['leave to Appeal' 'questions of Law' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice' 'sufficiency of Dividing Fence' 'extension of Time' 'new Evidence on Appeal']

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

Appeal From a Decision of the Consumer and Commercial Division of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal Concerning Orders Under the Dividing Fences Act 1991 (nsw) / Appeal Panel Determination on the Papers; Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Considered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appeal raised a question of law under s 80 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW).' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted on the basis that the appellants may have suffered a substantial miscarriage of justice.' "Whether the Tribunal's finding that the existing fences were sufficient was unfair and equitable or against the weight of evidence." 'Whether documents from the 2008 Local Court proceedings constituted significant new evidence.' 'Whether time for filing the Notice of Appeal should be extended.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants identified no question of law and failed to show any basis for leave to appeal: the Tribunal's finding that the fences were sufficient was open on the evidence, the complaints about 2008 Local Court matters and the $275 money order provided no substance for an appeal, the asserted privacy and design issues were not shown to warrant intervention, and the alleged new evidence consisted of documents available from the 2008 proceedings. Although the Notice of Appeal was filed six days late, the respondents did not oppose an extension, so time was extended and leave to appeal was refused with the appeal otherwise dismissed.

Court Disposition

Time for filing the Notice of Appeal extended; leave to appeal refused; appeal otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • ['A hearing be dispensed with.' 'The time for filing the Notice of Appeal is extended to 4 January 2022.' 'Leave to appeal refused.' 'Appeal otherwise dismissed.']