Taylor v Joye [2018] NSWCATAP 309

Taylor v Joye [2018] NSWCATAP 309

The Tribunal’s reasoning on s 22 discretion was unclear and inadequately stated all relevant matters; this was an error of law justifying allowing the appeal, but on rehearing, the Panel found that the appellants should not be permitted to serve a notice under s 22, and the application should be dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: David Taylor; Appellant: Rosemary Taylor; Respondent: Ashley Joye
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Panel Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; application dismissed; extension of time to file Notice of Appeal granted; costs reserved for submissions.
Legal Topics
Dividing Fences, Jurisdiction, Appeal – Error of Law, Extension of Time – Out of Time 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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Taylor

Appellant

Rosemary Taylor

Appellant

Ashley Joye

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal Panel Decision

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal erred in finding no jurisdiction under s 22 Dividing Fences Act 1991 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether inadequate reasons were given constituting an error of law
  3. 3 Whether leave should be granted to serve a late notice seeking contribution to fencing work

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal’s reasoning on s 22 discretion was unclear and inadequately stated all relevant matters; this was an error of law justifying allowing the appeal, but on rehearing, the Panel found that the appellants should not be permitted to serve a notice under s 22, and the application should be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; application dismissed; extension of time to file Notice of Appeal granted; costs reserved for submissions.

Orders

  • Leave to extend the time to file the Notice of Appeal granted.
  • Appeal allowed.