Roberts v Greinke
Case
•
[2018] QCATA 48
•4 May 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Roberts v Greinke [2018] QCATA 48
[2018] QCATA 48
4 May 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Roberts and Greinke were neighbours whose properties adjoined at a common boundary. The dispute arose over the type of fence to be erected on that boundary. The disagreement extended to the location of the boundary line. The applicant, Roberts, wanted to construct a 1.8-metre high bluestone Colorbond fence, whereas the respondents, Greinke, were opposed to this type of fence. The matter was heard and determined in the Magistrates Court of Queensland.
The legal issues for the court to decide were whether the proposed fence was suitable for the region and, if not, whether an engineer should be consulted to assess its structural suitability. The court also needed to determine the appropriate location of the boundary line and the responsibilities of the parties in constructing a dividing fence.
The court considered that an engineer should be consulted to assess the structural suitability of the fence proposed by Roberts. The court ordered that a new dividing fence be erected on the common boundary. The President of the Queensland Division of Engineers Australia was to nominate an independent civil engineer to provide advice on whether the proposed fence would withstand cyclone and wind loadings applicable to the locality. If the engineer could provide certification that the fence would be sufficient, then Roberts could proceed with construction of the fence, subject to the engineer supervising the construction and providing certification upon completion. If the engineer could not provide such certification, then a different fence, in accordance with a quote from Yeppoon Carpentry Services, would be constructed by the respondents.
The orders of the court included extending the time for service of the application for leave to appeal and granting leave to appeal. The court set aside the amended order of the acting magistrate and ordered a new dividing fence to be erected, with the costs of the engineer to be borne by Roberts. The respondents' liability for contributing to any fencing work was limited to $2,585.
The legal issues for the court to decide were whether the proposed fence was suitable for the region and, if not, whether an engineer should be consulted to assess its structural suitability. The court also needed to determine the appropriate location of the boundary line and the responsibilities of the parties in constructing a dividing fence.
The court considered that an engineer should be consulted to assess the structural suitability of the fence proposed by Roberts. The court ordered that a new dividing fence be erected on the common boundary. The President of the Queensland Division of Engineers Australia was to nominate an independent civil engineer to provide advice on whether the proposed fence would withstand cyclone and wind loadings applicable to the locality. If the engineer could provide certification that the fence would be sufficient, then Roberts could proceed with construction of the fence, subject to the engineer supervising the construction and providing certification upon completion. If the engineer could not provide such certification, then a different fence, in accordance with a quote from Yeppoon Carpentry Services, would be constructed by the respondents.
The orders of the court included extending the time for service of the application for leave to appeal and granting leave to appeal. The court set aside the amended order of the acting magistrate and ordered a new dividing fence to be erected, with the costs of the engineer to be borne by Roberts. The respondents' liability for contributing to any fencing work was limited to $2,585.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
-
Property Law
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Boundary Disputes
-
Fiduciary Duty
-
Structural Suitability
-
Engineer's Certification
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Roberts v Greinke [2018] QCATA 48
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
2