Chunara v Meshram (No.2)

[2025] NSWCATCD 102

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Chunara v Meshram (No.2) [2025] NSWCATCD 102

Hearing dates:

6 May 2025

Date of orders:

01 August 2025

Decision date:

01 August 2025

Jurisdiction:

Consumer and Commercial Division

Before:

P Moran, Senior Member

Decision:

The application by the respondent to renew the proceedings is dismissed.

Catchwords:

DIVIDING FENCES ACT - renewal application – fencing work order compliance - extension of time

Legislation Cited:

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act, 2013 (NSW)

Dividing Fences Act, 1991 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Chunara v Meshram [2023] NSWCATCCD
[21 February 2023]

Texts Cited:

Nil

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Sohel Chunara (Applicant)
Aishwary Meshram (Respondent)

Representation:

Applicant: self-represented

Respondent: self-represented

File Number(s):

2022/00403478 (current)

Publication restriction:

Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background and Application to Renew

1. The applicant and respondent were, from a date prior to 7 July 2022 and up to 4 September 2022, adjoining owners of residential properties in [ADDRESS], Rockdale, New South Wales.

2. Following the service of a Fencing Notice on 7 July 2022 the applicant, by Application lodged with the Tribunal on 19 October 2022, sought an order for fencing work to be carried out pursuant to the provisions of the Dividing Fences Act, 1991 (DF Act). He also sought an order as to the contribution to be made by the respondent for the cost of performing the fencing work.

3. The Application was determined by the Tribunal on 21 February 2023 (February 2023 Decision).

4. The Tribunal made an order for the carrying out of fencing work; the relevant orders being:

1. The Tribunal extends time, if an extension is needed, to lodge [the] Application on 19 October 2022.

2. The respondent must pay the applicant $1375.00 on or before 21 March 2023. The applicant must inform the respondent how she can pay him this amount.

3. The fencing work be carried out (including the kind of dividing fence involved) – is as described in the 21 November 2021 quotation 3115 by BMKAV which is 25 metres x 1.8 metres colourbond and 6 metres x 900 millimetres colourbond fence, remove and replace, including drilling holes in the concrete and removing the timber fence and cleaning up after the works. The new fence to be constructed on the same location as the existing fence.

4. The fencing work must be carried out and completed within six (6) weeks by 5 April 2023.

5. The respondent must provide the applicant’s fencing contractor reasonable access to her property to ensure the applicant can comply with orders 3 and 4.

5. The Tribunal found that the then existing fence was over ten years old, was constructed of timber and was falling over. It further found that it was rotting and that its integrity was compromised by large gaps being dug under it. It found that the then existing fence was not sufficient and in need of replacement or at least extensive repairs.

6. After making findings as to the activities of the applicant’s then tenants it found that the applicant was liable for the majority of the cost of the replacement of the fence. It ordered the applicant to pay 75% of the cost and the respondent 25%. The money order made was based on a November 2022 quotation hence the sum the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant being $1375.00.

7. By Renewal of Proceedings Application lodged 10 July 2024 (Renewal Application) the respondent to the February 2023 Decision asserts that the works the subject of that Decision have not been complied with and seeks the orders set out at pages 10 and 11 of Exhibit R3 namely:

1. Removal of the fence installed by the applicant following the February 2023 Decision.

2. Reconstruction of excavation works.

3. Payment by the applicant of three quotation amounts, in advance, being quotations of a plumber, fencing contractor and builder.

4. Refund of the $1375.00 paid by the respondent to the applicant pursuant to the February 2023 Decision.

5. Permission/authorisation to the respondent to carry out the works.

6. For the applicant to pay to the respondent the cost of repair work to the respondent’s house and sidewalk pathway as well as to storm water and sewer pipes.

7. For the “new fence” [which I take to be a reference to the fence constructed by the applicant following the February 2023 Decision] to be replaced with “another proper fence”, with the fencing work to be arranged by the respondent.

8. Access to the adjoining property.

8. For consistency and ease of reference, as the applicant seeking renewal is the respondent in the underlying proceedings determined by the February 2023 Decision, I will refer to her as the respondent, and Mr Chunara as the applicant.

Hearing

9. The Renewal Application was heard on 6 May 2025.

10. Both parties represented themselves.

11. They each tended documents upon which they rely and, subsequent to the Hearing, lodged written submissions. The applicant’s documents are marked Exhibits A1 and A2; the respondent’s as Exhibits R1- R3

Jurisdiction

12. Clause 8(2) of Schedule 4 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act, 2013 (CAT Act) provides that if an order has not been complied with within the period specified by the Tribunal, the person in whose favour the order was made may renew the proceedings to which the order relates by lodging a notice with the Tribunal, within twelve (12) months after the end of the period, stating that the order has not been complied with.

13. Subclause (3) provides that the provisions of the CAT Act apply to a notice lodged in accordance with subclause (2) as if the notice were a new application made in accordance with the Act. Subclause (4) provides that when proceedings have been renewed in accordance with clause 8 the Tribunal may make any other appropriate order under the CAT Act or enabling legislation as it could have made when the matter was originally determined, or may refuse to make such an order. Clause 8 does not apply if the operation of the order has been suspended or the order has been the subject of an internal appeal (Clause 8(5)).

14. Enabling legislation is defined in s4 of the CAT Act to mean legislation that provides for (relevantly) applications to be made to the Tribunal with respect to a specified matter or class of matters, or otherwise enables the Tribunal to exercise functions with respect to a specified matter or class of matters.

15. Section 13(1) of the DF Act gives (relevantly) the Tribunal jurisdiction to hear and determine any matter arising under that Act. S14 provides (again relevantly) that the Tribunal may, in respect of an application under the DF Act, make an order determining any one or more of the matters set out in the subsection including fencing work to be carried out, the manner in which contributions for such fencing work are to be apportioned between adjoining owners and the time within which such work is to be carried out.

16. Section 6(1) of the DF Act provides that an adjoining owner is liable, in respect of adjoining lands where there is no sufficient dividing fence, to contribute to the carrying out of fencing work that results or would result in the provision of a dividing fence of a standard not greater than the standard for a sufficient dividing fence.

17. Relevantly for the purposes of the Renewal Application s41 of the CAT Act provides that the Tribunal may extend the period of time for the doing of anything under any legislation in respect of which the Tribunal has jurisdiction, despite anything to the contrary under that legislation.

Issues for Determination

18. From the content of the Renewal Application, the evidence adduced by the parties, and the oral and written submissions made by each, the issues for determination are:

1. Has the February 2023 Decision been complied with by the applicant within the period specified in the Order?

2. Has the Renewal Application been lodged within time?

3. If the Renewal Application has not been lodged within time, should the Tribunal exercise the discretion afforded to it by s41 to extend time?

4. If the application has been brought within time, or if the Tribunal extends time pursuant to s41,

1. What “other appropriate order” could be made under the DF Act, and

2. If there is such an “other appropriate order” should the Tribunal in the exercise of its discretion to make such an order?

5. Aside from the issue of compliance with the February 2023 Decision what, if any, damage has been caused to the respondent’s property by the fencing work and, if such damage has been caused -

1. by whom was the damage caused? and

2. if not by the applicant, what jurisdiction does the Tribunal have to make an order in respect of such damage?

19. In making the findings that I have on the Renewal Application I have considered the entirety of the documents admitted as evidence, and the parties submissions. These Reasons focus on the material central to the issues requiring determination but, to the extent that any evidence or a submission is not referred to, it should not be assumed that that evidence or submission has been ignored.

Compliance with February 2023 Decision

20. There is no issue between the parties a) that the respondent has paid to the applicant the amount of $1375.00 referred to in Order 2 made on 21 February 2023 and, b) that the February 2023 decision has not been the subject of an internal, nor the operations of the Orders made suspended. The relevant orders for consideration, therefore, are Orders 3 and 4, namely that the fencing work was to be as described in the 21 November 2021 quotation of BMKAV, the fence to be 25 metres x 1.8 metres colourbond and 6 metres x 900 millimetres colourbond with removal and replacement including the drilling of holes in concrete and removal of the existing fence and cleaning up after the work is done; further, that the new fence was to be constructed on the same location as the existing fence. The work was to be carried and completed within six (6) weeks by 5 April 2023.

21. The respondent outlines at pages 4 to 7 of Exhibit R3 her reasons for contending that the February 2023 Order has not been complied with.

22. Those reasons are:

1. The fencing work was not completed by BMKAV but by another unidentified contractor.

2. The fence was installed in an “incorrect position” because it was not installed “on the same old fence position”.

3. The height of the fence as installed is “irregular”. Some parts of it are “too high”.

4. The colour of the fence does not match the other sides of the respondents fence [which I takes to be a reference to other fences at the rear or other side of the respondent’s property];

5. The contractor did not completely remove and replace the old fence; some of the old poles and sleepers remain and are part of the new fence.

6. The contractor did not completely clean up after the fencing work.

23. At pages 46 to 59 of Exhibit R3 are pictures of what the respondent describes as rocks, stone and concrete cut and excavated from her sidewalk pathway and “dumped” onto sewer pipes and storm water pipes by the fencing contractor. The photographs at pages 60 and 61 of the Exhibit are said by the respondent to show fencing work being unfinished by reason of the fact that there are broken pieces of terracotta pipe laying underneath the new fence.

24. The photograph at page 62 is said to depict the fence encroaching onto the respondent’s land in that the new fence was constructed, she says, on top of a sidewalk pathway and not in the same position as the old fence.

25. The pictures at pages 64 to 78 inclusive are said by the applicant to show rocks and broken concrete in the area of construction of the new fence.

26. The photograph at page 89 shows, the respondent says, part of the new colourbond fence installed on top of a wooden sleeper from the existing fence.

27. Page 41 of Exhibit R3 is the BMKAV 21 November 2021 quotation referred to in the February 2023 Decision.

28. At page 121 of the Exhibit is a quotation of Angelo’s Local Fencing dated 31 May 2023 and addressed to the respondent. It quotes for the erection of a 25 metre x 1.8 metre high colourbond fence and demolition and removal of what is described as “old fence”. It includes the comment “new fence supplied as existing is not able to be saved very poor installation by previous fencing contractor”.

29. The applicant, at page 2 of the Exhibit A2 says that the fencing work as ordered in the February 2023 Decision was completed by 15 March 2023; further, that the respondent paid to him the ordered $1375.00 on 21 March. The fencing work was, he says, completed by Crippstarr Fencing between 13 and 15 March 2023 as per the Tribunal’s Orders. He points to the photographs appearing at pages 12 to 16 of his Exhibit as showing the fencing work undertaken.

30. The invoice from Crippstarr Fencing is at page 18 of the Exhibit.

31. A survey report is at pages 21 and 22.

32. The applicant contends that the surveyor’s report establishes that the new fence is built on the same line as the previous fence and meets the specifications outlined in the Tribunal order.

33. At pages 32 to 35 of Exhibit A2 the applicant reproduces pictures “from various times” to show a “before and after” of the fence location. He maintains that the photographs show that the new fence is built on the exact location of the old fence. He makes particular reference to the location of the old and new post holes in concrete shown in the picture on page 35 to demonstrate that they are “perfectly in line”.

34. The applicant further refutes, at page 8 of Exhibit R2, that the height of the fence is other than compliant with the  February 2023 Decision.

35. At the same page of the Exhibit the applicant refers to the 2023 Decision as not requiring BMKAV to complete the work but, rather, for the work to be completed as described in that company’s quotation. The work was undertaken by Crippstarr Fencing and was completed, he contends, in a workmanlike fashion and to a reasonable standard. Pictures taken of the fence on 3 September 2024 are at pages 51 and 52.

36. There is one timber post that remains from the old fence at the Crofts Lane end of the property. The applicant says that this single post was in a salvageable state and that the old timber fence had detached itself from that post, ie the post had not lent in the way that the remainder of the timber fence had. He says that the timber post is solid and that, in any event, substantial compliance has been achieved per s16 of the DF Act.

37. The applicant further refutes the respondent’s contention of failure to have the works cleaned up at the conclusion of the works. He says that no communication was received from the respondent. He points to the photo at page 55 of his Exhibit as showing the area on each side of the fence taken, he says “. . . . .as soon as the fence was about to be put up in.”

38. The respondent, as the Renewal Application applicant, bears the onus of proof on the usual balance of probabilities basis that the February 2023 Decision has not been complied with. She has not discharged that onus. I am satisfied, on the evidence adduced, that the Orders have been complied with.

39. There is no evidence of an expert nature relied on by the respondent to support her contention of the fence not being constructed in accordance with the February 2023 Decision. There is one document within the respondent’s material that refers to the quality of the work carried out. That is a quotation of Angello’s Local Fencing dated 31 May 2023. That quotation includes the words:

“New fence supplied as existing is not able to be saved. Very poor installation by previous fencing contractor.”

40. The author of the quotation does not provide any detail as to the contention of poor installation. Nor does the author refer to the February 2023 Decision or express any opinion as to whether the fence as then installed - bearing in mind the applicant’s evidence of the fencing work having been completed in mid March 2033 - being other than in compliance with the Tribunal’s decision.

41. I accept the applicant’s evidence of the fence being constructed at the same location of the pre-existing fence, per the Tribunal’s Order. The photographs referred to earlier within Exhibit A2, in particular the photographs appearing at pages 34 and 35, show the location of the fence and that the fence posts were installed in the same location.

42. Although the surveyor’s report at pages 36 and 37 of the same Exhibit mentions the fence it does not purport to be a report specifically referable to the location of the fence. Nevertheless, one would expect that the author of that survey report would have mentioned the fence location if it was considered that the fence was other than on the boundary line.

43. I accept the applicant’s evidence of the fencing work having been completed by 15 March 2023.

44. Whilst I accept that one timber post from the existing fence was not replaced, I again accept the applicant’s evidence that that single timber post was not structurally compromised and could remain. Hence find per s16 of the DF Act that there has been substantial compliance by the applicant with the terms of the February 2023 Decision and that, pursuant to s16, there has been sufficient compliance.

45. The respondent’s evidence, other than in respect of the single remaining timber post, does not establish that the works the subject of the February 2023 Decision were not carried out or completed by 5 April 2023. The evidence adduced by the respondent of Angello’s Local Fencing says in the quotation dated 31 May 2023 that the fencing work that the author considers to have been poorly installed was completed fencing work. That evidence accords with the evidence of the applicant, whose evidence I accept on this issue, that the fencing work had been completed by mid March 2023.

46. As the respondent has not satisfied the requirement in clause 8(2) of Schedule 4 of the CAT Act of the February 2023 Orders not having been complied with within the period specified by the Tribunal, the Renewal Application fails on that basis.

Has the Renewal Application Being Lodged Within Time ?

47. Clause 8(2) required the lodgement of a notice seeking renewal within 12 months after the end of the period specified by the Tribunal. Here, the Order required the fencing work to be carried out and completed by 5 April 2023, meaning that the Renewal Application had to be lodged with the Tribunal prior to 5 April 2024. It was not in fact lodged until some three months later, on 10 July 2024.

48. As the Application has not been lodged within the time period specified by Clause 8(2) the Application stands to be dismissed unless the Tribunal exercises the discretion afforded to it by s41 of the CAT Act.

Should the Tribunal Exercise the Discretion in Section 41 to Extend ?

49. The respondent seeks an extension of time per s41 of the CAT Act.

50. In Exhibit R3 she says that she has “. . . . . been not feeling well to that extent that I was unable to read and write and understand and need assistance to collate required documents, writing, filing specific documents in NCAT . . . . .”

51. Page 6 of the Exhibit is a brief medical certificate of Dr Alam dated 29 August 2024. The doctor says that the respondent has been suffering from anxiety and depression since early last year and was taking medication. The doctor then says “Due to her mental condition she is not confident to do her paperwork by herself.”

52. In her documents the respondent provides -

1. a copy of a National Australia Bank funds transfer confirmation in respect of the $1375.00 paid to the applicant.

2. an 11 April 2023 email that she sent to a police officer.

3. over 120 photographs that she relies upon depicting what she contends is the fencing work undertaken, the damage caused to her property etc, with many of the photographs within the exhibit captioned to demonstrate what is shown.

4. a copy of what appears to be an extract of a Belle Property advertisement for the applicant’s property.

1. email communications with the local council, and a plumbing inspection report.

2. a plumbing quotation addressed to her.

3. the Angello’s Local Fencing quotation dated 31 May 2024 addressed to her.

4. a quotation of Auspec Building Pty Limited dated 8 June 2023 addressed to her.

53. The applicant submits that an extension of time should not be granted as doing so would cause, he says, substantial prejudice since he is no longer the owner of the property in question; having completed his sale of the property on 4 September 2024. He says that the twelve month period referred to in the February 2023 Decision expired in early April 2024, yet the respondent only made her Renewal Application in July 2024, three months after the 12 month period had expired.

54. He further says that within days of the fencing work being completed the respondent contacted both the police and the local council and that a plumber, a fencing contractor and a builder gave her quotations between March and June 2023.

55. The evidence demonstrates that the works the subject of the February 2023 Decision were completed in mid March 2023 and that on 21 March of that year the respondent paid to the applicant the sum of $1375.00 referred to in the Order.

56. I am satisfied that the applicant listed his property for sale in early July 2024, prior to the Renewal Application being lodged by the respondent on 10 July of that year.

57. The medical evidence relied upon by the respondent does not provide any detail as to what she was able to undertake, and what she was not able to undertake. There is only a brief reference to her not being “confident to do her paperwork by herself”. That does not provide a sufficient explanation. Nor does the doctor say that the lack of confidence in performing paperwork extended from when the respondent’s diagnosis of anxiety and depression commenced, ie “early” 2023.

58. At best the medical evidence suggests a lack confidence in performing paperwork for an undisclosed period of time prior to 29 August 2024. That however is inconsistent with the lodgement by the respondent of her Renewal Application a month earlier in July 2024.

59. The respondent in her Renewal Application sets out lengthy and detailed contentions and submissions, has annexed numerous photographs (often captioned), has annexed email communications authored by her, as well as quotations from tradespeople addressed to her.

60. I am not, on the evidence presented, satisfied that there was a medical incapacity of sufficient extent to have prohibited the respondent from either understanding the terms of the February 2023 Decision nor lodging her Renewal Application prior to 5 April 2024. She had over 12 months from the date of completion of the work to determine whether she wished to contend - by lodging an application with the Tribunal to renew the proceedings - that the Orders had not been complied with and to gather evidence, including expert evidence, as to non-compliance.

61. Section 41 of the CAT Act is to be considered in light of s36 of the Act and the need to facilitate the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in Tribunal proceedings.

62. I accept the applicant’s evidence of prejudice being suffered by him in the event that an extension of time were to be granted. He was entitled to assume, when no application to renew had been served on him in the period March 2023 to April 2024 - nor stay application nor appeal - that the issues that had been the subject of the initial October 2022 Application, and determined by the February 2023 Decision, had been concluded and that the respondent took no issue with steps taken by him to comply with the Orders. He was further entitled to assume that, that being the state of affairs, he could list his property for sale as he did in early July 2024.

63. The task of the Tribunal is to enable justice to be afforded between the parties and to consider issues such as the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the prospects of success of the application to renew and the extent of any prejudice suffered by the respondent.

64. Here the Renewal Application, if made within time, would not - on the findings I have made - be successful in that, for the reasons explained earlier, I am not satisfied that the February 2023 Decision has not been complied with, or at the very least has not been the subject of substantial compliance.

65. The delay in question is a period of over 12 months and the reason offered by the respondent of ill health is not supported by detailed medical evidence. Further, the contention of ill health resulting in a lack of confidence in doing “paperwork” is inconsistent with the respondent’s actions. She has participated in the initial hearing in early 2023, engaged in communications with the applicant, the police, the local council and tradespersons, and has put together an extensive Exhibit in support of her Renewal Application. I do not accept, therefore, the respondent’s contention of a medical reason for the Renewal Application not being lodged within time.

66. Additionally, the applicant has, I find, been substantially prejudiced by reason of having taken the step, well after the 12 month renewal period expired when he could consider that the issues in relation to the dividing fence were at an end, to sell the property.

67. Another relevant issue is that Orders of the type sought by the respondent in the Renewal Application - as set out at Pages 10 and 11 of Exhibit R3 - could not be made in the absence of the existing owners of the property (ie the property previously owned by the applicant) being parties to the proceedings and being heard; noting that the respondent seeks Orders for the removal of the existing fence and the reconstructing of a new fence.

68. The respondent’s application under s41 for the extension of time for the lodgement of the Renewal Application is rejected.

69. Even if I were satisfied, then, that the February 2023 Decision had not been complied within the period specified by the Tribunal, the Renewal Application would nevertheless stand dismissed by reason of having not been made within time and absent a s41 extension of time order.

What Other Appropriate Order Could Be Made Under the Dividing Fences Act?

70. Although not necessary to decide given the findings that either I have made of no failure to comply with the February 2023 Order, the Renewal Application not being lodged within time, and there being no extension under s41, what, if any, other appropriate order under the DF Act could have been made when the matter was originally determined? That is what the Tribunal would be required to do in the event of proceedings having been renewed within time and a finding made of non-compliance with earlier Orders.

71. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction in terms of orders as to fencing work is set out in s14 of the DF Act.

72. Relevantly for present purposes the Tribunal is empowered to make an order - per s14 (1)(b) - determining fencing work to be carried out. Further, it can determine the manner in which contributions for the fencing work are to be apportioned between the applicant and the adjoining owner, which portion of the work is to be constructed or repaired by either owner and the time within which the work has to be carried out.

73. Here the Tribunal determining the Renewal Application, if it were treated as a new application made under the CAT Act (per clause 8 (3)), could not make an order as between the current respondent the current applicant for fencing work under s14 (1)(b). This because the current applicant is not, and has not been since September 2024, the respondent’s adjoining owner. The current adjoining owner - unidentified in the evidence - is not a party to the proceedings.

Damage to Respondent’s Property

74. The respondent contends, as part of her Renewal Application, that the contractor who performed for the applicant the fencing work pursuant to the February 2023 Decision damaged her property. She says at page 6 of Exhibit R3 that the contractor:

1. excavated the ground and drilled large deep holes into the ground.

2. left the holes open and unfilled resulting in the respondent not being able to walk near the area because she was afraid to trip and fall.

3. left the ground looking messy and unsightly; and

4. the cutting, dumping and throwing of some of the “heavy weighted rocks/stones” on top of sewer pipes have caused significant damage to water/sewer pipes.

75. The respondent relies upon the various photographs forming part of Exhibit R3. She also refers to an All Needs Plumbing inspection report dated 2 July 2024, commencing at page 118 of the Exhibit. The author of that report refers to visiting the property in April 2023 and says that he “. . . . . carefully examined the damaged sewer pipe located on the side of the property”. The author also says “during our inspection, we discovered that excavation work had been carried out by a fencing contractor to replace the common fence”, and that the respondent had informed the author that following that work the sewer pipe was blocked and broken.

76. The author of the report says that on inspection sewage was found leaking out of the ground where the excavation had taken place.

77. There is then reference to a) the author attending the property again in June 2024 (14 months later), and b) the “areas where sandstone blocks and backfill materials have been used”. The author then says that “. . . . . the sewer line has been undermined and cracked as a result of the work carried out by the fencing contractors”.

78. The applicant at page 12 of Exhibit A2 contends that there is no evidence from a sewer expert that the respondent’s sewer pipe has been damaged by the contractors performing the fencing work. He annexes at page 59 of his Exhibit a sewage service diagram and, at page 61, a photograph showing what he says is the likely path for the sewer pipe per the sewage service diagram.

79. There is no evidence adduced by the respondent of an expert nature as to the sewer pipe being damaged, when such damage was likely to have occurred nor the cause of any such damage? The author of the All Needs Plumbing report, prepared more than 12 months after the initial inspection in April 2023, solely relies on being informed at that time by the respondent that the sewer pipe was blocked and broken following excavation work carried out by a fencing contractor. The author of the report then, it seems, assumes that what has been said by the respondent is correct by expressing the opinion at the bottom of the report that the sewer line had been “undermined and cracked” as a result of the work being carried out by the fencing contractors.

80. Absent more detailed analysis as to cause, and the adducing of facts on which the opinion is expressed, I do not accept the opinion of the All Needs Plumbing report author. I’m not satisfied on balance of probabilities that the respondent discharges the onus of proof resting on her to establish that the damage to water/sewer pipes has been sustained, has been caused by or as a consequence of the fencing work, when such damage was sustained, nor as to the identity of the person or entity responsible for it.

81. The respondent does not contend that the applicant himself caused the damage; rather that the damage was caused by the fencing contractor. She does not plead the basis for her claim that the applicant ought be liable for the consequences of acts/omissions of a contractor.

82. The respondent does not point to the jurisdiction that she says the Tribunal has to make an order against the applicant for what she says at page 10 of Exhibit R3 is the cost of repair work to her sidewalk pathway and to storm water pipes and sewer pipes.

83. Absent an articulation by the respondent of what she says the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is for the making of such an order, and in the further absence of being satisfied, on balance of probabilities, that the damage complained of by the respondent has in fact been caused by the fencing work, or that the applicant ought bear responsibility for such damage, this aspect of the Application also fails.

Order

1. The Application by the respondent to renew the proceedings is dismissed.

********************

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.

Registrar

Decision last updated: 13 October 2025