Gynther v Mills

The applicants, Gynther, appealed against a decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales, which found that they were required to erect a dividing fence in accordance with a Notice to Fence. The respondents, Mills, had lodged the Notice to Fence in relation to a boundary dispute between their properties. The applicants preferred a chain link fence, but the tribunal ordered a timber fence. The applicants sought leave to appeal on the basis that the tribunal had failed to take into account their preference for a chain link fence. The central issue before the court was whether there were grounds to grant leave to appeal the tribunal's decision. The court held that the applicants had not demonstrated that the tribunal's decision was so plainly wrong that it ought not to stand. The applicants had not identified any errors in the tribunal's reasoning or any evidence that the tribunal had failed to properly consider their preference for a chain link fence. The applicants had not shown that the tribunal had acted beyond its jurisdiction or that it had failed to take into account relevant considerations. The court found that the tribunal had considered the applicants' preference for a chain link fence and had made a decision based on the evidence before it. The tribunal had also considered the respondents' preference for a better standard of timber fence and had ordered a timber fence that was of a higher standard than the one initially proposed by the applicants. The court held that the applicants had not demonstrated that the tribunal's decision was so plainly wrong that it ought not to stand. The court refused leave to appeal.