Abney & Anor & Pramod & Anor

The parties to this proceeding were the Abneys and the Pramods, who were neighbours. The dispute concerned a retaining wall that had been constructed by the Pramods on the boundary between their properties. The Abneys sought orders that the retaining wall be removed and that the Pramods be restrained from undertaking any further works on the boundary. The matter came before Thornton J in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the retaining wall constituted a nuisance at common law, and whether it encroached upon the Abneys' land. The Court was also required to consider the scope of the equitable remedy of an injunction in the context of boundary disputes and building works.

Thornton J found that the retaining wall, by reason of its height and proximity to the boundary, constituted a nuisance at common law. Her Honour applied the principles established in cases such as *Pestell v Alford* and *Hargrave v Goldman*, which recognise that unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of neighbouring land can give rise to a cause of action in nuisance. The Court also determined that the wall encroached onto the Abneys' property, constituting a trespass. In considering the appropriate remedy, Thornton J noted the significant cost and disruption that would be involved in removing the wall, but ultimately concluded that the Abneys were entitled to an injunction requiring its removal and restraining further works, given the substantial interference with their property rights.