Mayer v Bangar [2022] NSWCATAP 163

Mayer v Bangar [2022] NSWCATAP 163

The Tribunal's order that each party pay 50% is supported by the finding that the fence was 17 years old and there was no persuasive evidence of its condition prior to the negligent damage; the Tribunal had discretion to assess contribution and gave sufficient reasons, and its decision was not unreasonable.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Disposition of Appeal Against First Instance Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['dividing Fences' 'negligence' 'contribution to Fencing Costs' 'tribunal Appeals']
['property Law' 'tribunal Procedure'] ['dividing Fences' 'negligence' 'contribution to Fencing Costs' 'tribunal Appeals']

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 / Disposition of Appeal Against First Instance Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal erred in ordering equal contribution to fence replacement despite negligent damage by respondents' 'Whether the Tribunal failed to provide proper reasons' 'Whether the order was manifestly unreasonable']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal's order that each party pay 50% is supported by the finding that the fence was 17 years old and there was no persuasive evidence of its condition prior to the negligent damage; the Tribunal had discretion to assess contribution and gave sufficient reasons, and its decision was not unreasonable.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The Appeal is dismissed.']