Edwards-Louis v Jamison - [2014] QCAT 183

CITATION:

Edwards-Louis v Jamison [2014] QCAT 183

PARTIES:	Mrs Sandra Edwards-Louis (First Applicant) Mr Jeffrey Louis (Second Applicant)
v
Mr Barry Jamison (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

MCDO918/12

MATTER TYPE:

Other minor civil dispute matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Southport

DECISION OF:

Adjudicator Trueman

DELIVERED ON:

5 February 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Southport

ORDERS MADE:

1. The Application to renew a decision filed by the Respondent on 15 January 2014 is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

Dividing Fences – Renewal of Decision

Queensland Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 61, s 133, s 134
Queensland Civil & Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009, s 89

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (“QCAT Act”).

REASONS FOR DECISION

The respondent made application on 15 January 2014 under section 133(2) of the QCAT Act for the renewal of a final decision. The original claim related to a dividing fence dispute.
The respondent alleges that the fence has not been constructed pursuant to the quoted works and that the final decision should be renewed to note that the ‘retaining walls were in order for the boundary fence to be built as per quote’.

HISTORY

The claim has a lengthy litigation history being originally filed 19 November 2012 for orders to construct a dividing fence between the parties’ properties, where no fence existed. The matter was listed for hearing on 1 February 2013 and adjourned at the request of the Respondent. The claim was adjourned to 10 April 2013 where the hearing could not proceed as the Respondent raised the issue of the exact location of the boundary line and where the fence should be constructed. An order was made for the parties’ property to be surveyed and a report to be presented to the tribunal and location of the boundary. The order included that the cost of the report to be equally paid by both parties.
The matter was listed was heard and determined on 19 June 2013. The orders were extensive and provided, amongst other things, for the Applicants to arrange for the construction of the fence pursuant to a quotation, and an order that the Respondent must remove brick walls along his boundary that encroached onto the Applicants land and to “make way” for the construction of the boundary fence. The Respondent had agreed to remove the offending brick wall so the dividing fence could be constructed. There was no order made as to the consequence of the Respondent failing to undertake the brick wall removal.
On 27 August 2013 the Applicants made application to renew the decision based on the fact that the Respondent refused to remove the brick wall so the dividing fence could be constructed. The application to renew was successful as despite the Respondent stating that he would undertake the works he had refused to do so. The Respondents evidence in response alleged that the ‘survey identification…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Edwards-Louis v Jamison and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] QCAT 183
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Edwards-Louis v Jamison involved a legal dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant, heard in the relevant Australian court. The nature of the dispute centred around the renewal of a decision made by the respondent. The plaintiff sought to renew a decision that had been filed by the respondent on 15 January 2014, and the case was brought before the court to determine whether this renewal was permissible. The legal issues before the court included the interpretation of the relevant procedural rules governing the renewal of decisions and the criteria that must be satisfied for such a renewal to be approved.

The court carefully examined the procedural rules and the circumstances surrounding the original decision to determine whether the conditions for renewal were met. It considered the grounds upon which the application was made and whether the plaintiff had provided sufficient justification for the renewal. The court also assessed the timeliness of the application and the potential impact on the respondent if the decision were to be renewed. Ultimately, the court concluded that the application did not meet the necessary criteria for renewal, and thus the application was refused.

The court's reasoning was based on a thorough analysis of the procedural requirements and the specific facts of the case. It found that the application did not adequately address the criteria necessary for the renewal of the decision. The court's decision was definitive, and it refused the application to renew the decision filed by the respondent on the specified date. The final orders of the court reflect this outcome, ensuring that the procedural integrity of the decision-making process was maintained.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

THAT the Application to renew a decision filed by the Respondent on 15 January 2014 is refused.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.