Margy L Walsh v R Tomsic [2014] NSWCATCD 118

Margy L Walsh v R Tomsic [2014] NSWCATCD 118

The proposed rectification work solely concerns the maintenance of a retaining wall and does not constitute 'fencing work' as defined by s 3 of the Dividing Fences Act 1991; therefore, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction and the application must be dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Application Under Dividing Fences Act 1991 / Decision at First Instance
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
['dividing Fences' 'retaining Walls' 'tribunal Jurisdiction']
['property Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['dividing Fences' 'retaining Walls' 'tribunal Jurisdiction']

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

Application Under Dividing Fences Act 1991 / Decision at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the proposed rectification work to a retaining wall qualifies as 'fencing work' under s 3 of the Dividing Fences Act 1991 so as to entitle the applicant to a contribution from the respondent"]

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed rectification work solely concerns the maintenance of a retaining wall and does not constitute 'fencing work' as defined by s 3 of the Dividing Fences Act 1991; therefore, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction and the application must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • ['Application COM 14/12650 is dismissed.']