Nguyen & Le v Davies - [2011] SADC 63

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil: Minor Civil Review)
NGUYEN & LE v DAVIES
[2011] SADC 63
Reasons for Decision of His Honour Judge Beazley
6 May 2011
TORTS - NUISANCE - DEFENCES - GENERALLY
TRESPASS TO LAND - EASEMENTS - REAL PROPERTY - ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE
Application for Minor Civil Review of decision of a Magistrate pursuant to Section 38 of the Magistrates Court Act – neighbourhood dispute – plaintiffs assert that defendant unlawfully interfered with the plaintiffs wall which abutted the boundary with the defendant’s property – self help to remove graffiti from wall facing the entrance to the defendant's property - the plaintiffs asserted that the defendant had committed a trespass by inserting bolts into subject wall, and in painting the exterior of the wall – further asserted that the defendant had caused an inflow of water into the plaintiffs' dwelling; and that damage was caused to the plaintiffs' “earth electric system” - finally the plaintiffs asserted that the defendant had breached their "right to light".
Minor Civil Review – the learned Magistrate concluded that judgment ought to be entered for the defendant – whether plaintiffs' claim ought to have been dismissed – purpose and objects of Section 38 of the Magistrates Court Act 1991 considered – complaint by plaintiffs that Magistrate erred in failing to give detailed reasons for conclusions reached.
Held: Application for review dismissed.
Magistrates Court Act 1991 s 38; Law of Property Act 1936 (SA) s 22; Graffiti Control Act 2001 (SA) s 12, referred to.
Ventrice v Ipseftel [2008] SADC 147; Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247; Abrahams v Flynn & Anor (1994) BC9503225; Wheeldon v Burrows (1879) 12 Ch.D.31; Bolton v Clutterbuck [1955] SASR 253; Averbach v Beck (1985) 6 NSWLR 424; De Jager v Payneham & Magill Lodges Hall Inc (1984) 36 SASR 498; Young v Wheeler [1987] Aust Torts Rep 68,966; Owners SP 30339 v Torada Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 1154; Yandle v Done [2011] 1 NZLR 255; Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; Burton v Winters [1993] 1 WLR 1077; Bathurst City Council v Saban (No 2) (1986) 58 LGRA 201; Hutchens v City of Holdfast Bay [2007] SASC 238; Plenty v Dillon (1991) 171 CLR 635; Sedleigh-Denfield v O'Callaghan [1940] AC 880, considered.

NGUYEN & LE v DAVIES
[2011] SADC 63
Introduction

This is an application by Thanh Ngoc Le and Thinh Xuan Nguyen (the applicants) for this Court to review a judgment delivered in a Minor Civil Action pursuant to s 38 of the Magistrates Court Act 1991 (the Act). The applicants were the plaintiffs in action number 7917 of 2008 in the Magistrates Court in which Tony Davies was the defendant (the respondent).
On 27 November 2009 following the delivery of ex tempore reasons, a Magistrate dismissed the applicants’ claim, and ordered that the applicants pay the respondents costs of the proceedings fixed at $700.
The application raises some…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Nguyen & Le v Davies and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2011] SADC 63
Decision Date: 6 May 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Nguyen and Le versus Davies, the plaintiffs sought a minor civil review of a decision made by a magistrate. The dispute was a neighbourhood conflict, where the plaintiffs claimed that the defendant unlawfully interfered with a wall that shared a boundary with the defendant’s property. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant had trespassed by inserting bolts into the wall and painting the exterior. They further claimed that the defendant had caused water to enter their dwelling and damage their earth electric system. The plaintiffs also asserted that the defendant had violated their right to light.

The central legal issues the court had to address were whether the magistrate correctly dismissed the plaintiffs' claim and if the plaintiffs' complaint that the magistrate failed to provide detailed reasons for their conclusions was valid. The court needed to consider the purpose and objects of Section 38 of the Magistrates Court Act 1991 in this context.

The court examined the magistrate’s decision and found that the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claim was justified. The magistrate had correctly applied the relevant legal principles in reaching their decision. The court also noted that while the plaintiffs had expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of detailed reasons, the magistrate's decision was not manifestly unjust or unreasonable. Therefore, the application for a minor civil review was dismissed. The final orders included that the costs of the application be paid by the applicants.

Orders