Rice v Livingstone

The appeal in Rice v Livingstone involved multiple parties with disputes over tree obstruction on adjoining properties. The appellants contested a Tribunal decision that dismissed their applications for a tree dispute, arguing that the Tribunal had failed to consider relevant evidence and act fairly. The case reached the court, which needed to decide if the Tribunal had correctly applied the relevant legal tests and considered all pertinent factors in their decision.

The court examined the legal issues, focusing on whether the Tribunal had correctly identified the test for determining the severity of tree obstruction and whether they had applied this test appropriately to the facts of the case. The appellants argued that the Tribunal had failed to act fairly by rejecting expert evidence and not conducting an inspection of the properties. The court needed to determine if the Tribunal's decisions were legally sound and whether the appellants' claims of unfairness were substantiated.

In its reasoning, the court found that the Tribunal had indeed erred in their application of the legal test for tree obstruction. The court held that the Tribunal had failed to consider the views that existed at the time the appellants took possession of their properties and had not adequately weighed the expert evidence presented. The court also noted that the Tribunal had not conducted an inspection of the properties, which was a significant oversight. As a result, the court allowed the appeal of Ronald and Mariette Gove, set aside the Tribunal's decision, and remitted the application back to the Tribunal for a hearing by a different member, with an instruction to conduct an inspection of the properties beforehand.

The court dismissed the appeals of the other parties, finding that the Tribunal's decisions regarding them were correct. Each party was granted the liberty to file written submissions on the matter of costs within 14 days.