Just v Wu [2023] NSWCATEN 1

Just v Wu [2023] NSWCATEN 1

The Tribunal refused the application to refer the Respondent for contempt as alternate enforcement remedies were available and the conduct did not amount to wilful disobedience sufficient to warrant referral. The application to declare the Respondent vexatious was refused for want of jurisdiction; only the Supreme Court/Land and Environment Court may make such orders. Directions were given for the further conduct of the substantive fencing dispute.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Contempt and Vexatious Proceedings Orders (enforcement Under Dividing Fences Act 1991 (nsw) and Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (nsw)) / Hearing and Determination of Applications, With Directions for Continuation of Substantive Fencing Dispute
Outcome
Applications for referral for contempt and for vexatious proceedings order refused; directions given for continuation of fencing dispute; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['contempt of Tribunal' 'vexatious Proceedings' 'dividing Fences' 'enforcement of Tribunal Orders']
['civil Procedure' 'property Law'] ['contempt of Tribunal' 'vexatious Proceedings' 'dividing Fences' 'enforcement of Tribunal Orders']

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 for Contempt and Vexatious Proceedings Orders (enforcement Under Dividing Fences Act 1991 (nsw) and Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (nsw)) / Hearing and Determination of Applications, With Directions for Continuation of Substantive Fencing Dispute

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Respondent's conduct is capable of constituting contempt of the Tribunal" 'Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to declare the Respondent a vexatious litigant' 'Appropriate procedure for resolving the unresolved fencing dispute']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal refused the application to refer the Respondent for contempt as alternate enforcement remedies were available and the conduct did not amount to wilful disobedience sufficient to warrant referral. The application to declare the Respondent vexatious was refused for want of jurisdiction; only the Supreme Court/Land and Environment Court may make such orders. Directions were given for the further conduct of the substantive fencing dispute.

Court Disposition

Applications for referral for contempt and for vexatious proceedings order refused; directions given for continuation of fencing dispute; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['The application to refer the Respondent to the Supreme Court for contempt is refused.' 'The application for a vexatious proceedings order against the Respondent is refused.' 'Within 28 days, each party file and serve a document setting out with precision the orders sought by that party to give effect to the orders...