Pai v Daubney

[2023] QCATA 39

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Pai & Anor v Daubney & Anor [2023] QCATA 39

PARTIES:

TSUNG-HAN KEVIN PAI AND YI-CHIA LEE

(applicant/appellant)

v

ANDREW DAUBNEY AND DEBORAH DAUBNEY

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL169-22

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCD01140/21

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

3 April 2023

HEARING DATE:

31 March 2023

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Dr J R Forbes

ORDERS:

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL - APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL – fencing dispute – where application for contribution to costs of fencing – where claim for retaining wall - where application dismissed as out of time – whether time for service of application may be extended – where no application for extension made – where application incompetent – where leave to appeal refused

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 32, s 61
Neighbourhood Disputes (Dividing Fences and Trees) 2011 (Qld) s 31

Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld) s 473(5)

Ballard (t/a Simpliciter Legal Solutions v Smith (t/a Twenty 20 Building Consultancy [2021] QCATA 76

Baxter v NSW Clickers Association (1909) 10 CLR 114
Bull v Porteus [2018] QCATA 10
Cameron v Spalding [2012] QCATA 145
Campaigntrack Victoria Pty Ltd v The Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney General & Ors [2016] QCA 37
Deveze v Suosaari [2021] QCATA 106
DMW v CGW ; (1982) 151 CLR 491; [1982] HCA 73

McGarry v Coates [2013] QCATA 326

Neate v Zillotti [2022] QCATA 168

Nunn v Baker (1987) 518 So Jo 711

Parisienne Basket Shoes Pty Ltd v Whyte (1938) 59 CLR 369
Pollard & Anor v Fitzgibbon & Anor [2019] QCATA 42
R v Federal Court of Australia; Ex parte Pilkington ACI (Operations) Pty Ltd (1978) 142 CLR 113
Seo v Kent Realty Southport [2018] QCATA 125; [2018] QCA 319

Thorpe v Charles Sturt City Corporation (1999) 103 LGERA 395; [1999] SASC 10

Wall v the King; Ex parte King Won (No 1) (1927) 39 CLR 245
White v Steer [2018] QCATA 30
Wong v Arthur [2020] QCAT 89

Zacaropoulos v Davison [2022] QCAT 257

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

1. At material times the applicants (‘Pai’) and the respondents (‘Daubney’) were proprietors of adjacent residential allotments in Joynt Street, Hamilton, Brisbane.

2. During redevelopment of Pai’s land Pai built a concrete retaining wall on his land and planned construction of a new dividing fence between the parties’ properties. In Pai’s view each party should bear one half of the cost of these constructions.

3. Absent an agreement on that point, Pai, on or about 21 June 2021, gave a contribution notice[1] to Daubney. This document proposed that the parties share expenses exceeding $40,000.[2] It is hardly surprising that Daubney demurred.

   [1]Neighbourhood Disputes (Dividing Fences and Trees) 2011 (Qld) (‘NDA’) s 31.

   [2]Transcript of hearing 16 May 2022 (‘T’) page 15 line…