Dimitropoulos v Wang and Ding [2023] NSWCATCD 170

Dimitropoulos v Wang and Ding [2023] NSWCATCD 170

The Tribunal found that the original orders required the respondents to pay for the fencing works, and the works were carried out in accordance with those orders by the applicant after the respondents failed to comply within the required three months. It was appropriate to make a money order in the applicant's favour for the full amount as ordered for the works carried out, as the statutory requirements and burden of proof were met, and there was no substantial compliance by respondents within time.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Consumer and Commercial (dividing Fences) / Hearing and Final Orders After Remitter
Outcome
Applicant's claim allowed; money order made for $1,386.00; no order as to costs
Legal Topics
['dividing Fences' 'contribution to Costs' 'orders Under Dividing Fences Act 1991']
['environment and Planning' 'property Law'] ['dividing Fences' 'contribution to Costs' 'orders Under Dividing Fences Act 1991']

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

Consumer and Commercial (dividing Fences) / Hearing and Final Orders After Remitter

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal can make fresh orders for recovery of money for fencing works under Dividing Fences Act 1991 (NSW)' 'Whether the works were performed in accordance with the original orders' 'Whether there was substantial compliance with orders within required time' 'Proper construction of original orders regarding scope of works, responsibility, and timing' 'Whether a money order should be made, and for what amount']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the original orders required the respondents to pay for the fencing works, and the works were carried out in accordance with those orders by the applicant after the respondents failed to comply within the required three months. It was appropriate to make a money order in the applicant's favour for the full amount as ordered for the works carried out, as the statutory requirements and burden of proof were met, and there was no substantial compliance by respondents within time.

Court Disposition

Applicant's claim allowed; money order made for $1,386.00; no order as to costs

Orders

  • ['The respondents, Whitney Hong Wang and Yunhao Ding, must pay the applicant, Spiro Dimitropoulos, the amount of $1,386.00.' 'Any amount payable under Order (1) is to be applied against any amount received by the applicant under any garnishee order against the respondents.' 'Any difference between the amount in...