Styles v Rowley [2023] NSWSC 1053

Styles v Rowley [2023] NSWSC 1053

The source of jurisdiction for the appeal is s 70(1)(c) of the Local Court Act, requiring compliance with Pt 5 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW): leave is required for grounds not raising a pure question of law. Grounds 1 and 3 did not raise questions of law alone but rather mixed questions of fact and law; leave was refused, as there was no issue of principle, public importance, or injustice, and the amount at stake did not warrant the cost and complexity of continued litigation. Grounds 4-6, even assuming one was a 'no evidence' ground, failed on the facts because there was some evidence supporting the Magistrate's finding. No clear question of law was identified in the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Local Court, Leave to Appeal and Dismissal of Further Amended Summons
Outcome
Appeal and further amended summons dismissed; leave to appeal on grounds 1 and 3 refused; costs ordered against plaintiff
Legal Topics
['dividing Fences' 'right of Appeal' 'statutory Interpretation' 'environmental Planning Instruments' 'adequacy of Reasons']
['property Law' 'local Government Law'] ['dividing Fences' 'right of Appeal' 'statutory Interpretation' 'environmental Planning Instruments' 'adequacy of Reasons']

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 / Judgment on Appeal From Local Court, Leave to Appeal and Dismissal of Further Amended Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the right to appeal was conferred under ss 39-40 or s 70(1)(c) of the Local Court Act 2007 (NSW) and under Pt 5 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW)' 'Whether grounds 1 and 3 of the appeal raise questions of law or require leave' 'Whether grounds 4, 5, and 6 properly identify questions of law' 'Whether the finding by the Magistrate in the primary proceedings as to fence height compliance was supported by evidence' 'Whether lack of identified mandatory relevant considerations or inadequate reasons constituted a question of law']

Ratio Decidendi

The source of jurisdiction for the appeal is s 70(1)(c) of the Local Court Act, requiring compliance with Pt 5 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW): leave is required for grounds not raising a pure question of law. Grounds 1 and 3 did not raise questions of law alone but rather mixed questions of fact and law; leave was refused, as there was no issue of principle, public importance, or injustice, and the amount at stake did not warrant the cost and complexity of continued litigation. Grounds 4-6, even assuming one was a 'no evidence' ground, failed on the facts because there was some evidence supporting the Magistrate's finding. No clear question of law was identified in the...

Court Disposition

Appeal and further amended summons dismissed; leave to appeal on grounds 1 and 3 refused; costs ordered against plaintiff

Orders

  • ['The plaintiff has leave to file the further amended summons.' 'Leave to appeal is refused for proposed grounds 1 and 3.' 'The further amended summons dated 29 August 2023 is otherwise dismissed, with costs.']