Cameron v Smith [2023] NSWCATCD 25

Cameron v Smith [2023] NSWCATCD 25

The Tribunal extended time because the applicant gave reasons for delay, including flooding, difficulty obtaining legal advice and emotional difficulty, and there was no prejudice to the respondent. On the merits, having regard to the section 4 considerations and the evidence, including the nature and height of the existing fencing, the uses of the adjoining lands, the locality, the retaining walls, the absence of evidence that cattle had escaped or that a solid fence would address weeds or stray animals, and the respondent's lack of responsibility for the applicant's neighbour conflict, the existing dividing fence was sufficient. It was therefore unnecessary to order replacement or...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Dividing Fences Application in the Consumer and Commercial Division of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales / Final Determination After Hearing, Including Extension of Time to Lodge the Application
Outcome
Time to lodge the application was extended, but the application was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['dividing Fences' 'sufficient Dividing Fence' 'extension of Time' 'neighbour Disputes' 'contribution to Fencing Costs']
['property Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['dividing Fences' 'sufficient Dividing Fence' 'extension of Time' 'neighbour Disputes' 'contribution to Fencing 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Dividing Fences Application in the Consumer and Commercial Division of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales / Final Determination After Hearing, Including Extension of Time to Lodge the Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time to lodge the application should be extended under section 41 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act.' 'Whether the existing dividing fence was a sufficient dividing fence for the purposes of the Dividing Fences Act.' 'Whether the respondent should be ordered to contribute half the cost of constructing 52 metres of 1.8 metre colourbond fencing.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal extended time because the applicant gave reasons for delay, including flooding, difficulty obtaining legal advice and emotional difficulty, and there was no prejudice to the respondent. On the merits, having regard to the section 4 considerations and the evidence, including the nature and height of the existing fencing, the uses of the adjoining lands, the locality, the retaining walls, the absence of evidence that cattle had escaped or that a solid fence would address weeds or stray animals, and the respondent's lack of responsibility for the applicant's neighbour conflict, the existing dividing fence was sufficient. It was therefore unnecessary to order replacement or...

Court Disposition

Time to lodge the application was extended, but the application was dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The time within which the application may be lodged is extended under section 41 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act to 5 December 2022.' 'The application is dismissed.']