Bennett v Hawley [2021] NSWCATAP 71

Bennett v Hawley [2021] NSWCATAP 71

The Appellant identified no error of law and did not demonstrate a substantial miscarriage of justice. The Tribunal's findings that a fence was required, that the proposed concrete post and three-strand plain wire fence was sufficient, and that evidence about any past fence did not materially affect the merits were findings open on the evidence and were not against the weight of evidence. Leave to appeal was therefore refused and the appeal dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal Under S 80(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 From a Consumer and Commercial Division Decision Concerning Fencing Work Under the Dividing Fences Act 1991 / Appeal Panel Hearing; Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['internal Appeal' 'dividing Fences' 'sufficient Dividing Fence' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice' 'weight of Evidence' 'leave to Appeal']
['civil and Administrative Law' 'property Law'] ['internal Appeal' 'dividing Fences' 'sufficient Dividing Fence' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice' 'weight of Evidence' 'leave to Appeal']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Internal Appeal Under S 80(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 From a Consumer and Commercial Division Decision Concerning Fencing Work Under the Dividing Fences Act 1991 / Appeal Panel Hearing; Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal should be granted where the appellant challenged findings of fact and the weight given to evidence.' "Whether the Tribunal's finding that a dividing fence was required was against the weight of evidence or caused a substantial miscarriage of justice." "Whether the Tribunal erred in accepting the respondent's fencing contractor's quote and proposed fence design as sufficient." 'Whether evidence about a fence said to have existed in the past should have been allowed or affected the outcome.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Appellant identified no error of law and did not demonstrate a substantial miscarriage of justice. The Tribunal's findings that a fence was required, that the proposed concrete post and three-strand plain wire fence was sufficient, and that evidence about any past fence did not materially affect the merits were findings open on the evidence and were not against the weight of evidence. Leave to appeal was therefore refused and the appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is refused.' 'The appeal is dismissed.']