Weller v Bennett [2009] NSWCA 52

Weller v Bennett [2009] NSWCA 52

There was no trespass or actionable nuisance because work done on the Wellers' land was performed with permission, the dam was within the respondents' property, and evidence amply supported the trial Judge's findings.

Parties
First Appellant: Hugo Weller; Second Appellant: Erna Weller; First Respondent: Kenneth Raymond Macmillan Bennett; Second Respondent: Pamela Denise Bennett; Third Respondent: Gregory Colin Buckett
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Trespass, Nuisance, Property Boundaries
Torts Trespass Nuisance Property Boundaries

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hugo Weller

First Appellant

Erna Weller

Second Appellant

Kenneth Raymond Macmillan Bennett

First Respondent

Pamela Denise Bennett

Second Respondent

Gregory Colin Buckett

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the findings of the trial Judge that there was no trespass should be set aside

Ratio Decidendi

There was no trespass or actionable nuisance because work done on the Wellers' land was performed with permission, the dam was within the respondents' property, and evidence amply supported the trial Judge's findings.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellants to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal