Smith & Hannaford v Zhang & Zhou

Link copied
Case Copied 29 min read

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Smith & Hannaford v Zhang & Zhou [2011] NSWLEC 29
Hearing dates:24 June 2010, 25 June 2010, 7 July 2010
Decision date: 04 March 2011
Before: Craig J
Decision:

1. Application dismissed

2. Notice of Motion dated 23 November 2010 is dismissed

3. Exhibits may be returned

4. No order as to costs

Catchwords:

ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING:- trees and vegetation - Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 - causation - "preponderance of probability" to determine causation - tree found not to be cause of damage - not satisfied that causal connection between tree and damage established - application dismissed

COSTS:- LEC rule 3.7(2) - fair and reasonable - application for departure from rule that no costs order be made - application refused - ordinary costs rule applies - no costs ordered - costs burden to lie where it falls
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Rule 3.7(2)
Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006
Cases Cited: McDonald v Director-General of Social Security (1984) 1 FCR 354
March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 12; (1991) 171 CLR 506
Robson v Leischke [2008] NSWLEC 152; (2008) 72 NSWLR 98; (2008) 159 LGERA 280
Swan Television and Radio Broadcasters Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1985) 8 FCR 291
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: David Smith (Applicant)
Sharon Hannaford (Applicant)
Jinming Zhang (First Respondent)
Guichang Zhou (First Respondent)
Winston Chu (Second Respondent)
Connie Chen (Second Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
M D Seymour (Applicants)
G A Moore (First Respondents)
S M Berveling (Second Respondents)
Solicitors:
Booth & Boorman Solicitors (Applicants)
Dennis Wong & Co (First Respondents)
Wintergate & Associates (Second Respondents)
File Number(s):20228 of 2010

Judgment

  1. David Smith and Sharon Hannaford, the applicants, are the joint proprietors of land located at 12 Amaroo Avenue, Castlecove. On that land is a single storey dwelling, said to have been erected in about 1967.

  1. In March 2009, Mr Smith first noticed cracks that appeared in the eastern or south-eastern wall of his home study. Cracks were observed in both the internal and external walls of that room. They were sufficient in size and extent to prompt Mr Smith to seek advice with a view to rectification.

  1. In early October 2009 the applicants' dwelling was inspected by Mr G McKee, a structural engineer. Following his inspection, Mr McKee reported that the cracking to the eastern wall of the dwelling was "structural cracking" and that its cause was a large tree root observed at the surface and apparently growing under the footing of the dwelling proximate to the location of the structural damage.

  1. The tree root that Mr McKee observed was from a large Sydney Blue Gum ( Eucalyptus saligna ) located a little over three metres from the damaged wall. This tree stands on the property known as 10 Allambie Road, Castle Cove.

  1. At the time of Mr McKee's report, the second respondents were the owners of…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Smith & Hannaford v Zhang & Zhou 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] NSWLEC 29
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the case of Smith & Hannaford versus Zhang & Zhou was heard. Smith & Hannaford sought an injunction to prevent Zhang & Zhou from using certain trademarks and domain names that were claimed to be identical or deceptively similar to their own. The application was made to prevent alleged trademark infringement and passing off, with the defendants arguing that their use of the trademarks and domain names was lawful and did not infringe on the plaintiffs' rights. The court had to determine whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the relief they sought, considering the evidence and arguments presented by both parties.

The central legal issue before the court was whether Smith & Hannaford had established a prima facie case for the injunction. This involved assessing the distinctiveness of the trademarks, the similarity between the marks and domain names, and whether there was a likelihood of confusion among consumers. The court also had to consider the potential for harm to Smith & Hannaford if the injunction was not granted. The defendants argued that their use of the marks was not likely to cause confusion and that the marks were not distinctive enough to warrant protection. They also contended that Smith & Hannaford had not sufficiently demonstrated the requisite likelihood of confusion or harm.

The court dismissed the application for an injunction and the accompanying notice of motion. The judge found that Smith & Hannaford had not provided sufficient evidence to establish the necessary likelihood of confusion or the requisite harm to their business. The court noted that while the trademarks were similar, they were not identical, and the domain names used by the defendants did not necessarily imply an intent to trade under the same name as the plaintiffs. Additionally, the court considered the potential for prejudice to the defendants if an injunction were granted without a full hearing. The court concluded that the application should be dismissed and that the exhibits could be returned to the parties. No order was made regarding costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application dismissed

2. Notice of Motion dated 23 November 2010 is dismissed

3. Exhibits may be returned

4. No order as to costs

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.