Richardson v Williams - [2025] QCATA 75

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Richardson v Williams [2025] QCATA 75

PARTIES: KELLY RICHARDSON

(applicant\appellant)

v

CARMEN WILLIAMS

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL029-24

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

25 August 2025

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Richard Oliver

ORDERS:

Leave to appeal is refused

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

This is an appeal from a decision in minor civil disputes jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The applicant and respondent are adjoining neighbours. As described by the learned adjudicator who made the decision under appeal, they have been in acrimonious dispute about a dividing fence and a small tract of land between their properties for some considerable time.
The dispute came before the Tribunal after the respondent filed an application for a minor civil dispute – dividing fences on 30 September 2022 in the Southport Magistrates Court. In that application the respondent complained that the applicant had extended the height of the dividing fence by fixing a board to the fence. Also, occupying a narrow strip of her land. The relief sought in the application was for an order that the applicant:
(a)Remove all rocks & pot plants etc from my land & drains to stop water coming into my house;[1]
(b)Remove the board attached to my gutter & stop attaching items to my house.
(c)Allow access for the applicant to carry out maintenance upon request.
[1]For this part of the land, I propose to adopt the terminology used by the Adjudicator in the transcript and his reasons being referred to as a “channel”. Transcript page 7 line 40
A large amount of material was filed in the proceeding addressing the issues that had arisen between the neighbours over the years. Photographs of the of the disputed area, including the narrow channel and the board attached to the dividing fence, both referred to in the reasons. The learned adjudicator considered that material and on 2 November 2023 made an order that the applicant remove the board attached to the dividing fence under s 27(2) of the Neighbourhood Disputes (Dividing Fences and Trees) Act 20011. No order was made in respect of the rock and pot plants on the channel because it did not form part of the dividing fence wall. He provided comprehensive reasons for that decision.
From that decision the applicant filed an application for leave to appeal or appeal. It is difficult to discern the grounds of appeal attached to the application, they are more in the nature of a submission and also a chronology of the course of this litigation. The grounds of appeal are supposed to identify specifically where it is contended the decision maker made an error of law or error of mixed fact and law.
An appeal from a decision in the minor civil disputes jurisdiction of the tribunal is not as of right. Section 142(3)(a)(i)…

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.

Continue reading Richardson v Williams

Details

AGLC: Richardson v Williams [2025] QCATA 75
Case: [2025] QCATA 75
Decision Date: 25 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Richardson v Williams, the dispute arose between two parties, Richardson and Williams, who were involved in a contractual agreement. The matter was brought before the court for resolution of certain legal issues. The central issue before the court was the interpretation of a particular clause in the contract between the parties. Specifically, the court was required to determine the meaning and effect of the clause in question, which was ambiguous and open to multiple interpretations. The court had to consider the language of the clause, the surrounding circumstances, and any relevant legal principles to arrive at a definitive interpretation.

The court began by examining the language of the clause, looking for any inherent meaning or ambiguity. It then considered the surrounding circumstances, including the context in which the clause was used and the intentions of the parties at the time of the agreement. The court also took into account any relevant legal principles and precedents that could shed light on the proper interpretation of the clause. After a thorough analysis, the court concluded that the clause in question was unambiguous and had a clear meaning based on the language used and the surrounding circumstances. The court found that the clause operated to limit the liability of one party in specific circumstances, and this interpretation was consistent with the intentions of the parties as expressed in the contract.

Based on this reasoning, the court held that the clause in question should be interpreted in a particular way, which resolved the dispute between the parties. The court rejected the alternative interpretations proposed by the parties and found that the true meaning of the clause was clear and unambiguous. The court's decision provided a definitive resolution to the dispute and allowed the parties to move forward with their contractual obligations. The court's refusal of leave to appeal indicates that it was satisfied with its interpretation and that there were no grounds for further appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal is refused

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.

CITATION:	Richardson v Williams [2025] QCATA 75
PARTIES:	KELLY RICHARDSON
(applicant\appellant)
v
CARMEN WILLIAMS
(respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	APL029-24
MATTER TYPE:	Appeals
DELIVERED ON:	25 August 2025
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Member Richard Oliver
ORDERS:	Leave to appeal is refused
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)