Magiros v Niven [2017] NSWCATCD 48

Magiros v Niven [2017] NSWCATCD 48

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding no valid notice under s 11 of the Dividing Fences Act 1991 was served at least one month prior to commencement, and that such a notice cannot be amended to rectify this defect; accordingly, Tribunal could not extend time or entertain amendments.

Parties
Applicant: Harry Magiros; Respondent: Audrey Niven
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Dividing Fence Dispute / Final Determination
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Dividing Fences, Jurisdiction, Fencing Notices, Extension of Time, Amendment of Notices
Property Law Civil Procedure Dividing Fences Jurisdiction Fencing Notices Extension of Time Amendment of Notices

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harry Magiros

Applicant

Audrey Niven

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Dividing Fence Dispute / Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction where application was commenced before expiration of one month after service of a fencing notice under Dividing Fences Act 1991
  2. 2 Whether a fencing notice can be amended after proceedings commenced

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding no valid notice under s 11 of the Dividing Fences Act 1991 was served at least one month prior to commencement, and that such a notice cannot be amended to rectify this defect; accordingly, Tribunal could not extend time or entertain amendments.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The Tribunal Orders that the Application is dismissed.