Saleh v O’Brien [2021] NSWCATAP 240
The respondent is liable for the whole cost of fencing work under s 8 of the Dividing Fences Act 1991 (NSW) because the work was required as a result of unauthorised, unsuitable alteration by the respondent, and no sufficient evidence was adduced by the respondent to counter the appellants' case; the initial Tribunal failed to address s 8 and erred in law.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 12 August 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Appeal Panel Decision on Appeal From Consumer and Commercial Division
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- ['dividing Fences' 'liability for Fencing Work' 'appeal on Error of Law']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Panel Decision on Appeal From Consumer and Commercial Division
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether respondent liable for whole cost of fencing work under s 8 of the Dividing Fences Act 1991 (NSW)' 'Whether Tribunal erred in law by failing to address s 8 and by finding equal liability']
Ratio Decidendi
The respondent is liable for the whole cost of fencing work under s 8 of the Dividing Fences Act 1991 (NSW) because the work was required as a result of unauthorised, unsuitable alteration by the respondent, and no sufficient evidence was adduced by the respondent to counter the appellants' case; the initial Tribunal failed to address s 8 and erred in law.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed
Orders
- ['Set aside orders 6, 7 and 8 made by the Tribunal on 17 May 2021.' 'The respondent is to pay the whole of the cost of fencing work the subject of the fencing notice dated 29 October 2020 in the sum of $1,328.00 within 14 days of the publication of these reasons.' 'The fencing work the subject of order 4 made by the...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment