Laris v Lin [2017] NSWSC 279

Laris v Lin [2017] NSWSC 279

Mr Laris was liable for trespass for wrongful removal of fences and for parking violations, including acts authorized for GTec, and owed compensatory and exemplary damages, as well as costs. Damages were calculated based on proven costs of fence reinstatement and parking, and exemplary damages awarded for high-handed conduct in constructing a barrier across Mr Lin's land.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Principal Judgment / Damages Quantification Following Prior Declarations and Liability Findings
Outcome
Judgment for the cross-claimant against the cross-defendant for damages and costs.
Legal Topics
['trespass' 'damages' 'easements' 'exemplary Damages' 'mesne Profits']
['equity' 'torts'] ['trespass' 'damages' 'easements' 'exemplary Damages' 'mesne Profits']

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

Principal Judgment / Damages Quantification Following Prior Declarations and Liability Findings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Quantification of damages for trespass' 'Compensatory damages calculated on restitutionary basis' "Liability for acts of trespass by cross-defendant's tenants" 'Authorisation or permission of tortious acts by tenant' 'Justification for exemplary damages against cross-defendant']

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Laris was liable for trespass for wrongful removal of fences and for parking violations, including acts authorized for GTec, and owed compensatory and exemplary damages, as well as costs. Damages were calculated based on proven costs of fence reinstatement and parking, and exemplary damages awarded for high-handed conduct in constructing a barrier across Mr Lin's land.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the cross-claimant against the cross-defendant for damages and costs.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the cross-claimant against the cross-defendant in the sum of $21,941.50.' "Order that the cross-defendant pay the cross-claimant's costs in the sum of $5,000."]