Cullen v Maginn

Cullen brought an action against Maginn to recover the cost of a dividing fence which had been demolished by Maginn. Cullen claimed that Maginn was liable for half the cost of the fence, and sought an order for specific performance of the agreement to replace the fence. Maginn defended the action on the basis that the agreement was not binding. The primary judge dismissed Cullen’s claim and Cullen appealed to the Full Court of the Federal Court. The Full Court held that the appeal was not frivolous or vexatious and that there was a serious question to be tried. The Full Court allowed the appeal and ordered Maginn to contribute to the cost of the fence and to pay Cullen’s costs of the application.

The legal issue before the court was whether Maginn was liable for half the cost of replacing the fence. The court found that there was an agreement between the parties that Maginn would contribute to the cost of replacing the fence. The court found that the agreement was binding and enforceable and that Maginn was liable for half the cost of replacing the fence. The court also found that the agreement was not unconscionable or unreasonable. The court held that the agreement was a valid and binding contract and that Maginn was liable for half the cost of replacing the fence.