Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Wilson v Farah [2017] NSWLEC 91 Hearing dates: 29 May 2017 Date of orders: 21 July 2017 Decision date: 21 July 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Preston CJ Decision: The Court orders that:
(1) The appeal is dismissed.
(2) Each party is to pay their own costs of the appeal.Catchwords: APPEAL – appeal against commissioner’s decision – application for the removal of a tree growing on the neighbouring property claimed to cause damage to swimming pool – appeal on questions of law – precondition to making order for tree removal – tree must cause damage to applicant’s property – meaning of “damage to property” – commissioner erred by too narrowly construing “damage to property” – damage not limited to physical damage to fabric of pool and other components – damage could include excessive algal growth on inside of pool and gross discolouration of pool water – material impairment of usefulness of pool and fitness for purpose constitutes damage to property – error on question of law did not vitiate decision – no error in finding that any damage was not caused by the tree – whether applicant denied procedural fairness – whether commissioner prejudged the application – commissioner invited, applicant gave and commissioner considered submissions and evidence – commissioner did not prejudge the application – whether commissioner denied a fair hearing by refusing to admit various documents into evidence – documents were either later admitted as evidence, otherwise considered by commissioner or irrelevant – no denial of fair hearing – appeal dismissed – each party to pay their own costs of appeal Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 s 56A
Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 ss 7, 9, 10(2)Cases Cited: A (A Juvenile) v R [1978] Crim LR 689
Barker v Kyriakides [2007] NSWLEC 292
Bayer Australia Ltd v Kemcon Pty Ltd (1991) 6 ANZ Ins Cas 61-026
Design Power Associates Pty Ltd v Willoughby City Council (2005) 148 LGERA 233; [2005] NSWLEC 470
Griffiths v Morgan [1972] Tas SR (NC) 279 (N28)
Guideline Drafting and Design v Marrickville Municipal Council (1988) 64 LGRA 275
Mainstream Aquaculture Pty Ltd v Calliden Insurance Limited [2011] VSC 286
March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506; [1991] HCA 12
Morphitis v Salmon [1990] Crim LR 48
R v Hayne (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 18 September 1998, unrep)
R v Previsic (2008) 185 A Crim R 383; [2008] VSCA 112
R v Whiteley (1991) 93 Cr App R 25
R v Zischke [1983] Qd R 240
Ranicar v Frigmobile Pty Ltd [1983] Tas R 113
Robson v Leischke (2008) 72 NSWLR 98; [2008] NSWLEC 152
Roper v Knott [1898] 1 QB 868
Samuels v Stubbs (1972) 4 SASR 200
Smith and Hannaford v Zhang and Zhou [2011] NSWLEC 29
Switzerland Insurance Australia Ltd v Dundean Distributors Pty Ltd [1998] 4 VR 692
Sydney Water Corporation v Caruso (2009) 170…
Continue reading Wilson v Farah
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Wilson v Farah [2017] NSWLEC 91
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 91
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Wilson v Farah involved the appellant, Wilson, who sought to have a contract enforced against the respondent, Farah Constructions, on the basis that Farah was a subsidiary of another company, Briand Pty Ltd, and therefore liable for the debts of Briand. The dispute was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue before the Court was whether Farah Constructions could be held liable for the debts of Briand Pty Ltd, its parent company, under the principles of piercing the corporate veil. The Court needed to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to show that Farah was a mere façade for Briand, effectively concealing the true ownership and control of the business.
The Court held that piercing the corporate veil is an extraordinary remedy and requires clear evidence of fraud or improper conduct. The evidence presented did not demonstrate that Farah was a mere façade concealing the true ownership and control by Briand. The Court found that Farah operated as a separate legal entity with its own assets and liabilities. The Court emphasised that the mere fact that Farah was a subsidiary of Briand did not automatically render it liable for Briand's debts. The Court concluded that there was no basis for piercing the corporate veil in this case. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the Court ordered that each party was to bear their own costs of the appeal.
The Court held that piercing the corporate veil is an extraordinary remedy and requires clear evidence of fraud or improper conduct. The evidence presented did not demonstrate that Farah was a mere façade concealing the true ownership and control by Briand. The Court found that Farah operated as a separate legal entity with its own assets and liabilities. The Court emphasised that the mere fact that Farah was a subsidiary of Briand did not automatically render it liable for Briand's debts. The Court concluded that there was no basis for piercing the corporate veil in this case. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the Court ordered that each party was to bear their own costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Court orders that:
(1) The appeal is dismissed.
(2) Each party is to pay their own costs of the appeal.
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.