Noorbergen v Henderson [2017] NSWCATAP 118

Noorbergen v Henderson [2017] NSWCATAP 118

The Tribunal had no jurisdiction as no valid s 11 notice was served, nor did the circumstances meet the criteria for urgent fencing work under s 9. Thus, s 11(5) applied, barring the application. Even if an agreement existed, it was not enforceable in the Tribunal but in another court.

Parties
Appellant: Marcus Noorbergen; Respondent: Daniel Henderson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Panel Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Dividing Fences, Jurisdiction, Section 11 Notices, Urgent Fencing Work, Agreements Under Dividing Fences Act
Civil Law Dividing Fences Jurisdiction Section 11 Notices Urgent Fencing Work Agreements Under Dividing Fences Act

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marcus Noorbergen

Appellant

Daniel Henderson

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal Panel Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction in the absence of a valid notice under s 11 of the Dividing Fences Act 1991
  2. 2 Whether the fencing work was urgent under s 9 of the Dividing Fences Act 1991
  3. 3 Whether an agreement between the parties affected the Tribunal’s jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal had no jurisdiction as no valid s 11 notice was served, nor did the circumstances meet the criteria for urgent fencing work under s 9. Thus, s 11(5) applied, barring the application. Even if an agreement existed, it was not enforceable in the Tribunal but in another court.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.