Teitzel v Houston

In the matter of Teitzel v Houston, the applicant appealed a decision of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) that ordered a wood paling fence to be constructed on the boundary line between the parties’ properties. The applicant argued that a sufficient dividing fence was already in place and that the tribunal failed to adequately consider the sufficiency of the existing fence. Additionally, the applicant claimed that the tribunal gave inadequate reasons for its decision and that it took irrelevant considerations into account in the exercise of its discretionary power. The tribunal rejected the applicant's arguments and refused his application for leave to appeal.

The legal issues in the case centred around whether the tribunal adequately considered the sufficiency of the existing fence, whether it gave adequate reasons for its decision, and whether it took irrelevant considerations into account. The applicant argued that the tribunal failed to consider the sufficiency of the existing fence, did not give him an opportunity to tender additional photographs, and did not consider the type of fence common in rural residential areas. The tribunal rejected these arguments, stating that the applicant was present at the hearing, that there was no explanation why submissions or other material were not filed prior to the hearing, and that additional evidence would probably not have produced a different conclusion. The applicant's complaint about already having paid for and erected the "unauthorised" fence was also rejected.

The tribunal found that the applicant's complaints about the tribunal's consideration of irrelevant matters were without merit. The tribunal considered the respondents' claim that they needed "hardwood fencing to be put up (for) privacy" and the fact that "both parties have dogs on either side which can bark at each other and see each other" as relevant considerations in the exercise of its discretionary power. The tribunal also considered the respondents' statement that they wanted "the fence up because of the threatening behaviour (of the applicant)" as relevant. The tribunal found that the applicant's complaints about the tribunal's consideration of irrelevant matters were without merit. The tribunal rejected the applicant's arguments and refused his application for leave to appeal.

The tribunal orders that the application for leave to appeal or appeal is refused.