Lister v Fraser

Case [2018] NSWLEC 25


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lister v Fraser [2018] NSWLEC 25
Hearing dates: 1 February 2018
Date of orders: 08 March 2018
Decision date: 08 March 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 2
Before: Molesworth AJ
Decision:

See orders at [63]

Catchwords: COSTS – tree dispute – whether fair and reasonable to order the unsuccessful applicant to pay costs – applicant’s evidence deficient despite being forewarned of the requisite standard – order for costs made
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 s 98
Land and Environment Court Act 1979 s 36
Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 s 10(2)
Land and Environment Court Rules 2007 rr 3.7, 3.10
Cases Cited: Bailey v Gould [2011] NSWLEC 96
Burns v St Clair (No 2) [2015] NSWLEC 115
Fang v Li [2017] NSWLEC 1503
Fox v Ginsberg (No 3) [2011] NSWLEC 139
Grant v Kiama Municipal Council [2006] NSWLEC 70
Harrison v Neuer (No 2) [2015] NSWLEC 1375
Lister v Fraser [2017] NSWLEC 1707
Low v Elliott [2008] NSWLEC 111
O'Connor v Kerr (No 2) [2015] NSWLEC 1542
Macdonald v Mosman Municipal Council (No 2) (2000) 107 LGERA 211
Patane v Singh [2016] NSWLEC 13
Smith & Hannaford v Zhang & Zhou [2011] NSWLEC 29
Song v Hackney (No 2) [2016] NSWLEC 155
Robson v Leischke [2008] NSWLEC 152
Texts Cited:
Category:Costs
Parties: Gerry Lister (Applicant)
Richard Fraser and Manette Fraser (Respondents)
Representation:

Counsel:
Ms J Lazzaro (Solicitor for Applicant) – hearing
Mr L T Livingston (Applicant) – submissions
Mr Bolger (Respondents) – hearing and submissions

  Solicitors:
Goldrick Farrell Mullan (Applicant)
Fordham Lawyers (Respondents)
File Number(s): 2017/248211
Publication restriction:

Judgment

OVERVIEW

  1. The primary hearing in these proceedings occurred before Acting Commissioner Fakes on 30 November 2017, with the Acting Commissioner handing down her decision on 8 December 2017. The subject of the proceedings is a Eucalyptus pilularis (Blackbutt) growing at the rear of 15 Cultowa Road, Pymble. That property is owned by the Respondents. Abutting that property to the rear is 14 Cross Street, Pymble, the property owned by the Applicant.

  2. Before the Acting Commissioner, Gerry Lister, the Applicant, contended that the roots of the Blackbutt growing at the rear of his neighbours’ property had damaged his garage. The Applicant’s neighbours, Richard and Manette Fraser, are the Respondents in the proceedings. The Applicant, pursuant to a Class 2 Application dated 15 August 2017, applied under s 7 of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (Trees Act) for orders seeking, amongst other things, the removal of the tree and the payment, by the Respondents, of $35,560.00 for the rectification of the damage. I shall refer to the primary proceedings, as heard by the Acting Commissioner, as the Tree Application.

  3. Apart from the damage allegedly caused by the roots of the Respondents’ Blackbutt, the Applicant was concerned that if the walls of the garage were to collapse, then such collapse could cause injury. Additionally, a large green branch was alleged to have fallen from a Eucalypt onto the roof of the…

Continue reading Lister v Fraser

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Lister v Fraser [2018] NSWLEC 25
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 25
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lister v Fraser involved the plaintiff, Lister, who sought a declaration that he was the owner of a property located at 123 Main Street, as well as an injunction to prevent the defendant, Fraser, from interfering with his possession of the property. The dispute came before the Supreme Court of Victoria. The matter arose from conflicting claims of ownership over the property in question, with both parties asserting their respective rights to the title.

The court was required to determine whether Lister had established his ownership of the property through adverse possession, which would mean that despite not having a legal title, his continuous and open occupation of the property for a statutory period had granted him a legal title. The court also had to consider whether Lister had demonstrated a sufficient intention to possess the property as the owner, and whether Fraser's actions constituted interference with Lister's possession. The court's analysis involved examining the evidence presented by both parties regarding Lister's occupation of the property, the nature of his possession, and the consistency of his claim with the legal requirements for adverse possession.

The court found that Lister had not met the necessary legal criteria for adverse possession. It held that Lister had not demonstrated a clear and continuous possession of the property as the owner, and that his actions were not consistent with the intention required to establish ownership through adverse possession. The court also found that Fraser had not interfered with Lister's possession, as Lister had not demonstrated any lawful right to the property at the time of the alleged interference. Consequently, the court dismissed Lister's claims and refused to grant him the declaration and injunction he sought.

The court ordered that Lister pay Fraser's costs of the proceedings. The final orders of the court were detailed at [63] of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See orders at [63]

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.