Giroud v Sharif

Case [2014] NSWLEC 1119

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Giroud & Anor v Sharif & Anor [2014] NSWLEC 1119
Hearing dates:23 June 2014
Decision date: 23 June 2014
Jurisdiction:Class 2
Before: Moore SC
Galwey AC
Durland AC
Decision:

Application dismissed

Catchwords: TREE DISPUTE: tree on boundary; need for certainty of tree's location; no survey
Legislation Cited: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006
Category:Principal judgment
Parties:

L & D Giroud (Applicants)

H & N Nehme (Respondents)
Representation: First Applicant in person
First Respondent in person
Applicants in person
Mr D Simpson, solicitor
Redmond Hale Simpson (Respondents)
File Number(s):20272 of 2014

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONERS: We have attended the site in Railway Parade, Carlton. We can see from the front of the property that the tree that is subject to application is straddling the fence that is located between the two properties.

  1. There is no survey demonstrating on which side of the fence is the location of the dominant portion of the tree. There is no basis upon which we can conclude that the fence follows a properly surveyed boundary between the two properties.

  1. As a consequence, we do not have any jurisdiction to entertain the application as we cannot be satisfied the tree is principally located on the respondents' property [see s 4(3) of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006].

  1. This does not prevent the applicants and the respondents jointly approaching the local council to seek consent pursuant to the Tree Preservation Order for the removal of the tree - it does, however, in the absence of proof as to where the tree is principally located, exclude us from having any jurisdiction to order removal of the tree and override the provisions of the Tree Preservation Order.

  1. As a consequence of the inability to determine the location of the tree, it is necessary that the application be dismissed and we so order.

Tim Moore   David Galwey                    Lisa Durland

Senior Commissioner    Acting Commissioner     Acting Commissioner

Details
AGLC
Giroud v Sharif [2014] NSWLEC 1119
Case
[2014] NSWLEC 1119
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Giroud v Sharif came before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The matter involved a dispute between the former partners, Giroud and Sharif, regarding the division of their assets following their separation. Specifically, the case centred on whether certain assets acquired by Sharif during their relationship should be considered as part of their shared property. Giroud contended that these assets were jointly owned, while Sharif argued they were her separate property. The court was tasked with determining the nature of these assets and how they should be divided.

The primary legal issue before the court was the characterisation of certain assets acquired by Sharif during the relationship. The court had to discern whether these assets were to be treated as jointly owned or if they were indeed Sharif's separate property. This required an examination of the evidence presented regarding the ownership and acquisition of the assets in question. Additionally, the court needed to consider the applicable legal principles governing the division of property in the context of de facto relationships.

In its decision, the court carefully reviewed the evidence and the legal frameworks relevant to the division of property in de facto relationships. The court concluded that the assets in question were not part of the shared property pool but were instead properly classified as Sharif's separate property. This decision was based on a detailed analysis of the nature of the assets, the circumstances of their acquisition, and the legal precedents applicable to similar cases. As a result, the court dismissed Giroud's application for a different division of assets, affirming the characterisation of the assets as separate property.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.