Thompson v Mundey [2017] NSWCATCD 53

Thompson v Mundey [2017] NSWCATCD 53

The applicant bore the onus of proving that the fencing work was not in substantial compliance with the orders made on 8 September 2016 or that there was an established defect or omission under s. 16(2). The expert reports and photographs did not establish that any remaining defects, particularly in the railings,...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Dividing Fences Dispute / Renewal Application Concerning Alleged Non Compliance With Previous Tribunal Orders
Outcome
The application is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['dividing Fences' 'substantial Compliance With Tribunal Orders' 'defective Fencing Work' 'adjoining Owners']
['property Law' 'consumer and Commercial Law'] ['dividing Fences' 'substantial Compliance With Tribunal Orders' 'defective Fencing Work' 'adjoining Owners']

Source-derived case record

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 Dispute / Renewal Application Concerning Alleged Non Compliance With Previous Tribunal Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the fencing work substantially complied with the Tribunal orders made on 8 September 2016.' 'Whether the respondent was liable to the applicant for any defect or omission in the fencing work under s. 16(2) of the Dividing Fences Act 1991.' 'Whether the applicant was entitled to relief in relation to alleged defects in the timber fence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant bore the onus of proving that the fencing work was not in substantial compliance with the orders made on 8 September 2016 or that there was an established defect or omission under s. 16(2). The expert reports and photographs did not establish that any remaining defects, particularly in the railings, affected substantial compliance, and the main issues with palings had been rectified before the hearing. The applicant therefore failed to demonstrate entitlement to relief.

Court Disposition

The application is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed with no order as to costs.']