Arnold v Crawford [2024] NSWCATAP 62

Arnold v Crawford [2024] NSWCATAP 62

The Appeal Panel extended time because the delay was minor, reasonably explained, the appeal had reasonable prospects and no relevant prejudice was suggested. Leave was granted because the Tribunal misread the Valley Garden quote as covering broader landscaping work when it related to the dividing fence, wrongly discounted that quote, and excluded retaining wall and ancillary costs that should have been considered. Those errors meant the decision was not fair and equitable and was against the weight of the evidence, depriving the appellants of a significant chance of a more favourable result. On rehearing, the reasonable fencing work costs, including ancillary costs capped at $5,000, were...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal Concerning Contribution to Costs of Dividing Fence and Retaining Wall / Appeal Panel Decision on Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal and Appeal
Outcome
Time extended, leave to appeal granted, appeal allowed, and first instance orders (1)(f) and (1)(h) set aside and replaced.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'question of Law' 'procedural Fairness' 'significant New Evidence' 'weight of Evidence' 'costs of Fencing Work']
['civil and Administrative Tribunal' 'dividing Fences' 'administrative Law' 'appeals'] ['extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'question of Law' 'procedural Fairness' 'significant New Evidence' 'weight of Evidence' 'costs of Fencing Work']

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

Appeal Concerning Contribution to Costs of Dividing Fence and Retaining Wall / Appeal Panel Decision on Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal and Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time to file the Notice of Appeal should be extended.' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted under s 80(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) and cl 12 of Sch 4.' 'Whether the Tribunal erred by treating the Valley Garden Landscapes quote as a quote for the entire landscaping project rather than fencing work.' "Whether the Tribunal's exclusion of retaining wall costs from shared costs was illogical, unfair or against the weight of the evidence." "Whether the Tribunal denied procedural fairness by overlooking the appellants' submission about ancillary costs." "Whether the appellants' further material constituted significant new evidence."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Panel extended time because the delay was minor, reasonably explained, the appeal had reasonable prospects and no relevant prejudice was suggested. Leave was granted because the Tribunal misread the Valley Garden quote as covering broader landscaping work when it related to the dividing fence, wrongly discounted that quote, and excluded retaining wall and ancillary costs that should have been considered. Those errors meant the decision was not fair and equitable and was against the weight of the evidence, depriving the appellants of a significant chance of a more favourable result. On rehearing, the reasonable fencing work costs, including ancillary costs capped at $5,000, were...

Court Disposition

Time extended, leave to appeal granted, appeal allowed, and first instance orders (1)(f) and (1)(h) set aside and replaced.

Orders

  • ['Time to file the Notice of Appeal extended to 9 October 2023.' 'Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal allowed.' 'Order (1)(f) made 12 September 2023 is set aside and in lieu, the appellants and respondent are to pay for the costs of the fencing work in equal proportions up to a cap of $34,645.00.' 'Order (1)(h) made...