Blain & Anor v Barzinpour & Anor (Appeal)

In the case of Blain & Anor v Barzinpour & Anor (Appeal), the appellants sought to challenge the decision of the Original Tribunal to grant an application to discontinue a proceeding. The dispute involved the removal of a conifer hedge and the construction of a path on common property, which was brought by one unit owner against another and the Owners Corporation. The appeal was heard by the Appeal Tribunal, which had to determine whether the Original Tribunal was correct to allow the discontinuance and if the summary of the agreement was accurate.

The primary legal issues before the Appeal Tribunal were whether the Original Tribunal had correctly allowed the discontinuance and whether it had accurately summarised the agreement. The appellants argued that the Owners Corporation was not properly heard, that there was no official view of the owners, and that the Tribunal did not afford procedural fairness to the respondents. The Tribunal had to assess if the Owners Corporation's views were properly considered and if the procedural fairness was maintained throughout the proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the Owners Corporation was present for the majority of the Original Tribunal hearing and had expressed their views, which the Tribunal took into account. There was no failure to hear and consider these views. Regarding the lack of an official view, the Tribunal determined that the Owners Corporation had indeed expressed their official stance, and this was considered in the decision-making process. As for procedural fairness, the Tribunal noted that the appellants had been given opportunities to speak and were aware of the respondents' situation, although this was not directly relevant to the discontinuance issue. The Tribunal concluded that the grounds of appeal were not substantiated.

In summary, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the Original Tribunal's decision to grant the application to discontinue and its summary of the agreement. The Tribunal upheld the process and decisions of the Original Tribunal, finding that the appellants' claims of procedural errors and lack of consideration of the Owners Corporation's views were unfounded.