Vasseur v Wright

The case of Vasseur v Wright involved a dispute between the parties over the costs and construction of a new dividing fence along a common boundary. The matter was initially dealt with by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. The respondent, Mr Wright, appealed to the Supreme Court of New South Wales, seeking leave to appeal the Tribunal's orders regarding the costs and construction of the fence. The appellant argued that the Tribunal had erred in allowing unsworn evidence and that there was an error in the quote on which the original orders were based. Additionally, the appellant contended that the Tribunal's orders should be corrected and renewed due to changed circumstances.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Tribunal had erred in permitting unsworn evidence and whether the orders should be corrected and renewed. The court considered whether the appellant's contentions about the unsworn evidence and the error in the quote amounted to an error of law. The court also examined whether the changed circumstances, including the respondent's actions inconsistent with the Tribunal's orders, warranted a correction and renewal of the orders.

The court held that there was no error of law in the Tribunal's decision to allow unsworn evidence, as the parties had agreed to this arrangement. The court also found that the error in the quote did not necessitate a correction of the orders, as the parties had agreed on the revised quote. Furthermore, the court determined that the changed circumstances justified the renewal of the orders to ensure they could be implemented. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal for leave and renewed the Tribunal's orders with certain corrections to reflect the agreed-upon quote and to account for the changed circumstances.

The court's final orders were that the application for leave to appeal was refused and that the orders of the Tribunal in minor civil dispute 1334 of 2010 were corrected and renewed. The renewed orders specified the construction and cost-sharing arrangements for the new dividing fence, with particular attention to the corrected quote and the payment process. The court also provided for the refund of any excess funds deposited by the respondents in the Tribunal’s trust account.