Schofield v Connors [2024] NSWCATAP 250

Schofield v Connors [2024] NSWCATAP 250

The Appeal Panel was not satisfied that the Tribunal failed to afford procedural fairness or misapplied the law. The appellant had a reasonable opportunity to be heard and his evidence was considered. The Tribunal correctly determined the sufficiency of the fence as required by the Dividing Fences Act 1991 (NSW), and there was no error on a question of law.

Parties
Appellant: Kerry Schofield; Respondent: Michael Connors
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Determination
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Dividing Fences, Procedural Fairness, Apportionment of Costs
Property Law Civil Procedure Dividing Fences Procedural Fairness Apportionment of Costs

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

Parties

Kerry Schofield

Appellant

Michael Connors

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal failed to afford procedural fairness to the appellant
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal misapplied the Dividing Fences Act 1991 (NSW), particularly s 4, in determining sufficiency of fence and apportionment of cost

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Panel was not satisfied that the Tribunal failed to afford procedural fairness or misapplied the law. The appellant had a reasonable opportunity to be heard and his evidence was considered. The Tribunal correctly determined the sufficiency of the fence as required by the Dividing Fences Act 1991 (NSW), and there was no error on a question of law.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The date for compliance with the Tribunal's Orders in 2023/00444197 dated 24 June 2024 is extended to 28 February 2025.