Tam v Du
Case
•
[2019] ACAT 94
•16 October 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Tam v Du (Appeal) [2019] ACAT 94
[2019] ACAT 94
16 October 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Tam v Du involved a civil dispute between two neighbours over the encroachment of a retaining wall onto the respondent's property. The case was heard by the tribunal, which had to decide on the appropriate remedy for the encroachment of the sandstone wall by the appellant onto the respondent's land.
The primary legal issues before the tribunal were whether the encroachment of the sandstone wall was minor and, if not, whether the appellant should be required to rectify the encroachments. The tribunal also considered the remedies available to the parties under the common law and whether the grounds of appeal raised any question of substance.
In its decision, the tribunal found that the encroachment of the sandstone wall was not minor and ordered the appellant to construct a new sandstone retaining wall on her property, extending from the existing wall to the boundary with the respondent's land. The tribunal also ordered the parties to share the cost of constructing a fence along the boundary between their properties. The tribunal noted that the issue of encroachment of buildings and structures had not been comprehensively addressed by statute and recommended that legislation be enacted to address such issues in the future.
The tribunal ordered that the original orders made on 21 January 2019 be set aside and that the appellant construct a new retaining wall and share the cost of constructing a fence with the respondent. The tribunal also recommended that legislation be enacted to comprehensively address issues of encroachment of buildings and structures.
The primary legal issues before the tribunal were whether the encroachment of the sandstone wall was minor and, if not, whether the appellant should be required to rectify the encroachments. The tribunal also considered the remedies available to the parties under the common law and whether the grounds of appeal raised any question of substance.
In its decision, the tribunal found that the encroachment of the sandstone wall was not minor and ordered the appellant to construct a new sandstone retaining wall on her property, extending from the existing wall to the boundary with the respondent's land. The tribunal also ordered the parties to share the cost of constructing a fence along the boundary between their properties. The tribunal noted that the issue of encroachment of buildings and structures had not been comprehensively addressed by statute and recommended that legislation be enacted to address such issues in the future.
The tribunal ordered that the original orders made on 21 January 2019 be set aside and that the appellant construct a new retaining wall and share the cost of constructing a fence with the respondent. The tribunal also recommended that legislation be enacted to comprehensively address issues of encroachment of buildings and structures.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Property Law
Legal Concepts
-
Encroachment
-
Remedial Orders
-
Costs
-
Adverse Possession
-
Restitution
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Tam v Du (Appeal) [2019] ACAT 94
Most Recent Citation
Dimov v The Owners - Units Plan No 2225 (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 446
Cases Citing This Decision
30
LP 202012 v Council of the Law Society of the Act (Appeal)
[2024] ACAT 12
Craven & Gilks v The Owners Units Plan No 2839
[2023] ACAT 4
Pye v Registrar, Domestic Animals Act 2000 (Appeal)
[2022] ACAT 102
Cases Cited
10
Statutory Material Cited
9
Blackshaw & Evans v Campbell (No.2)
[2016] ACAT 108
Campbell v Blackshaw & Evans
[2017] ACAT 64
Campbell v Blackshaw
[2018] ACTSC 39