Stanfield v Baker [2018] NSWCATCD 64

Stanfield v Baker [2018] NSWCATCD 64

The Tribunal found that there was no sufficient dividing fence between the adjoining rural lands. The lands were separated by Thone River but were adjoining lands for the purposes of the Dividing Fences Act 1991. Having considered all the circumstances, including the rural locality, the applicant's cattle grazing use, the respondents' horse care use, the usual local fence type, the parties' concerns, and the absence of relevant local policy or environmental instrument evidence, the Tribunal held that a sufficient dividing fence was required. The proposed dividing fence, varied to exclude the northern access point because of the respondents' clean water and dwelling proximity concerns and...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Orders That Fencing Work Be Carried Out Pursuant to the Dividing Fences Act 1991 / Principal Judgment After Hearing and Further Submissions on the Papers
Outcome
Fencing work ordered; apportionment of cost deferred pending filing of quotes.
Legal Topics
['boundaries of Land and Fencing' 'fences and Fencing' 'give and Take Fence' 'adjoining Lands Separated by a River' 'dividing Fences Act 1991']
['real Property' 'consumer and Commercial'] ['boundaries of Land and Fencing' 'fences and Fencing' 'give and Take Fence' 'adjoining Lands Separated by a River' 'dividing Fences Act 1991']

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 Orders That Fencing Work Be Carried Out Pursuant to the Dividing Fences Act 1991 / Principal Judgment After Hearing and Further Submissions on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether there was an insufficient dividing fence between the applicant's land and the respondents' land." 'Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to make orders under the Dividing Fences Act 1991.' 'What line, standard and fencing work should be ordered for a sufficient dividing fence where the adjoining lands are separated by Thone River.' 'Whether the respondents were liable to contribute to the cost of the fencing work.' "Whether the proposed northern river access point should be permitted given the respondents' water access concerns."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that there was no sufficient dividing fence between the adjoining rural lands. The lands were separated by Thone River but were adjoining lands for the purposes of the Dividing Fences Act 1991. Having considered all the circumstances, including the rural locality, the applicant's cattle grazing use, the respondents' horse care use, the usual local fence type, the parties' concerns, and the absence of relevant local policy or environmental instrument evidence, the Tribunal held that a sufficient dividing fence was required. The proposed dividing fence, varied to exclude the northern access point because of the respondents' clean water and dwelling proximity concerns and...

Court Disposition

Fencing work ordered; apportionment of cost deferred pending filing of quotes.

Orders

  • ["The line of dividing fence is to be a give and take fence as shown on Exhibit 2 as varied, including a Southern Access Area commencing at the respondents' southern boundary fence and following a line northerly 2 metres back from the high bank of Thone River into the respondents' land, continuing until 15 meters...