Grossi v Tian

[2025] QCAT 445

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:	Grossi v Tian [2025] QCAT 445
PARTIES:	MARIO GROSSI (applicant)
v
ZHONG PING (JENNY) TIAN (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	NDR105-24
MATTER TYPE:	Other civil dispute matters
DELIVERED ON:	7 November 2025
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Member McLean-Williams
ORDERS:	The Tribunal orders that the Respondent is to pay the Applicant $452.61 within 14 days of the date of these orders.
CATCHWORDS:	DIVIDING FENCE DISPUTE – circumstances wherein parties reach agreement – residual dispute confined to issue of Tribunal filing fees and associated costs
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	Self-represented
Respondent:	Self-represented

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The Applicant and the Respondent (‘the parties’) are adjoining owners[1] of properties situated at Casey Close in Ormiston.  The Applicant owns Number 8, and the Respondent is the owner of Number 7.

   [1]Neighbourhood Disputes (Dividing Fences and Trees) Act 2011 (Qld) s 15(1).

2. On 19 June 2024 the Applicant commenced an Application for a tree dispute under the Neighbourhood Disputes (Dividing Fences and Trees) Act 2011 (Qld) (‘the Act’), seeking orders from the Tribunal in relation to a tree stump and roots on Number 7 pushing up against a brick wall on the boundary, thereby cracking and moving the brickwork.

3. Photographs accompanying the Application reveal a rendered brick fence, comprising slatted aluminium in-fill panels each of about 1.8 metres positioned between rendered brick columns, with an accompanying low (approximately 200 mm) rendered brick infill section, also between the columns, and immediately beneath the aluminium in-fill panels. 

4. Other photographs accompanying the Application show a tree on Number 7, growing hard up against a section of the brick boundary fence, with an obvious crack through one infill section, as well as ground heave, very obviously caused by the roots of the tree.   

5. The offending tree was cut down on 15 March 2024 by a contractor, under instructions from the Respondent.  However, the roots of the tree remained in situ until as recently as 9 November 2024, when these were finally removed by a contractor retained by the Applicant during the repair of the brick infill.  The Respondent agreed to these works and paid the Applicant $1,176, yet only after an on-site mediation between the parties which was facilitated by Member Bishop. 

6. Relatedly, the Applicant had commenced Application Q4308-24, being an Application for Minor Civil Dispute – Dividing Fences in relation to the damaged condition of the boundary fence.  This was brought to an end by orders of the Tribunal made on 6 May 2024, requiring only that the Respondent pay to the Applicant $153.70, representing the cost of the filing fee for the Applicant to commence Application Q4308-24.

7. On 29 May 2025 the parties advised the Tribunal that the only outstanding issues in NDR105-24 related to payment of the sum of $452.61 by the Respondent to the Applicant for the filing fee and some related costs.  On 25 July 2024 the Applicant filed an Application for miscellaneous matters confirming that the additional costs beyond now claimed (beyond the original application fee) comprised: $23.27 for a current title search for 7 Casey Close; $24.06 for a current title search for 8 Casey Close; and $25.78 for a copy of the registered plan for 7 Casey Close.

   Respondent’s contentions

8. The Respondent contends that she has already paid $153.70 as costs to the Applicant and should not now be required to pay three separate application fees related to the same dispute.

   Applicant’s contentions

9. The Applicant contends that the Respondent’s prior payment of $153.75 relates to the Dividing Fence Dispute Q4308-24, and that he should be entitled to the filing fee of $79.50 in NDR105-24, by reason that the Tribunal’s procedures require the filing of two separate applications for the tree matter (NDR105-24) and the fence matter (Q4308-24). 

10. In relation to the other costs now claimed by the Applicant it is submitted that the claim is reasonable, given that directions 3 and 4 as made by the Tribunal on 25 June 2024 mandated that the Applicant file copies of current title searches for each of 7 and 8 Casey Close at Ormiston in the Tribunal, as well as a copy of the registered plan for 7 Casey Close at Ormiston.  Receipts in proof of the costs incurred by the Applicant to comply with those directions have been produced.

Tribunal Assessment and Orders

1. All of the amounts now claimed by the Applicant are reasonable, and are no more than necessary to compensate for amounts necessarily incurred by the Applicant for his having been required to commence Application NDR105-24.  These amounts are routinely allowed by the Tribunal in fence or tree disputes. 

2. The Tribunal orders that the Respondent is to pay the Applicant the following amounts within 14 days of the date of these orders:

   Filing fee for NDR105-25:  $379.50

   Title search fee (7 Casey Close):  $23.27

   Title search fee (8 Casey Close):  $24.06

   Registered plan fee (7 Casey Close):               $25.78

   Total payable:  $452.61