Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Kent v Aquilina [2025] NSWLEC 1160 Hearing dates: 4 November 2024 Date of orders: 18 March 2025 Decision date: 18 March 2025 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Douglas AC Decision: The Court orders that:
(1) Orders are at [249].
Catchwords: TREES (DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS) –damage to brick fence and retaining wall –apprehension of injury
Legislation Cited: Dividing Fences Act 1991, s 3
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Limitation Act 1969
Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, Pt 2, 4, 7, 8, 9,10,12
Uniform Civil Procedures Rules 2005, Sch 7
Cases Cited: Baker v Grabovac [2010] NSWLEC 1289
Barker v Kyriakides [2007] NSWLEC 292
Robson v Leischke (2008) 72 NSWLR 98
Texts Cited: AS4970:2009, Protection of trees on development sites 2009
Woollahra Council Tree Preservation Order 2006
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Richard Kent (Applicant)
Nellie Aquilina (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
R Kent (Self-represented) (Applicant)
A Hannam (Respondent)
FW Ewart and Ewart Solicitors
File Number(s): 2024/237145 Publication restriction: Nil
Judgment
Background
-
COMMISSIONER: An old brick fence above a brick retaining wall (the wall) separated the rear yards of neighbouring semi-detached properties in Woollahra. The age of the dwellings was estimated at about 100 years.
-
In her affidavit of 15 October 2024 (Exhibit 1), Nellie Aquilina (the respondent) noted the parties’ properties were originally under a single title, which was subdivided by the installation of a common east-west dividing wall in November 1956. Exhibit 1, Annexure B2 was a copy of the cancelled original title, dated 9 May 1957.
-
The respondent’s mother purchased the south side property in 1957. The property then passed through a chain of succession until Mrs Aquilina inherited part ownership in or around 2009, before she became the sole owner of the property in March 2012.
-
Mrs Aquilina submitted two surveys from North Western Surveys Pty Limited, from December 2010 (Annexure F6 of Exhibit 1), and October 2024 (Exhibit 3). The 2024 surveyor identified the applicant’s property as Lot A and the respondent’s property as Lot B, per the title documents. I will maintain this identification of the properties.
-
The applicant is Richard Kent, an owner of Lot A.
-
In Exhibit 3, at p 2, par 2, the 2024 surveyor said the “wall did not exist” in the title diagram dated December 1956 … “and instead an old fence existed along the entirety of the subject boundary suggesting that ground level difference between Lot A and B was minimal in 1956”. Mrs Aquilina resided at Lot B until 1961. In Exhibit 1, par 5, Mrs Aquilina said she did “not know precisely when the dividing wall was constructed”.
-
Exhibit 3, at p 1, par 8 noted, “It appears that the wall is retaining lot B, as lot B is up to approximately 0.9m higher than lot A.” The common boundary extended approximately east-west from the front to the rear…
Continue reading Kent v Aquilina
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Kent v Aquilina [2025] NSWLEC 1160
- Case
- [2025] NSWLEC 1160
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Kent argued that Aquilina had breached the agreement by failing to transfer certain assets as required. Aquilina contended that the agreement was not binding due to a lack of consideration. The Court found that the agreement was supported by consideration, as both parties had exchanged promises to do something they were not legally bound to do. The Court further found that the agreement was not unconscionable and that there was no evidence of duress or undue influence.
The Court held that the settlement agreement was binding and enforceable. It ordered Aquilina to transfer the assets as per the terms of the agreement. The Court also ordered Aquilina to pay costs to Kent.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Court orders that:
(1) Orders are at [249].
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.