Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Zhang v Davidson (No 2) [2020] NSWLEC 89 Hearing dates: 27 April 2020 Date of orders: 14 July 2020 Decision date: 14 July 2020 Jurisdiction: Class 2 Before: Robson J Decision: See orders at [72]
Catchwords: ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING — Land and Environment Court — Practice and procedure — Costs — Tree dispute — Whether order for costs is fair and reasonable — Costs of litigant appearing by an agent — No order as to costs
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 98
Land and Environment Court Rules 2007 (NSW) r 3.7
Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW) Pt 2A, ss 14D, 14E
Cases Cited: Arden Anglican School v Hornsby Shire Council [2008] NSWLEC 103; (2008) 158 LGERA 224
Bailey v Gould [2011] NSWLEC 96
Burns v St Clair (No 2) [2015] NSWLEC 115
Cachia v Hanes (1994) 179 CLR 403; [1994] HCA 14
D’Arcy v Campbelltown City Council [2003] NSWLEC 164; (2003) 126 LGERA 401
Dunford v Gosford City Council (No 3) [2015] NSWLEC 96
Fox v Ginsberg (No 3) [2011] NSWLEC 139
Grant v Kiama Municipal Council [2006] NSWLEC 70
Liverpool City Council v Moorebank Recyclers Pty Limited; Benedict Industries Pty Ltd v Minister for Planning (No 4) [2017] NSWLEC 116
McLaren v Lewis (No 2) [2011] NSWLEC 176; (2011) 183 LGERA 344
Texts Cited: Land and Environment Court Practice Note – Class 2 Tree Applications
Category: Costs Parties: Jianqiu Zhang (Applicant)
Bruce Norman Davidson (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
G Shapiro, solicitor (Applicant)
R Buttrose, as agent (Respondent)
Hones Lawyers (Applicant)
R Buttrose, as agent (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2019/00228006 Publication restriction: Nil
Judgment
-
Bruce Norman Davidson was the successful respondent to an application brought by Jianqiu Zhang, the owner of adjoining premises, pursuant to the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW) (‘Trees Act’) seeking the removal of a hedge growing in the front yard of Mr Davidson’s premises in Vaucluse.
-
Mr Zhang’s application was heard onsite on 21 November 2019 by Acting Commissioner Galway. The Commissioner reserved his judgment at the conclusion of the hearing and, on 10 January 2020, dismissed Mr Zhang’s application: Zhang v Davidson [2020] NSWLEC 1030.
-
Mr Davidson now applies by notice of motion filed 7 February 2020, for an order that costs in the sum of $13,267.50, which he claims were incurred by him in defending the application, be paid by Mr Zhang.
-
The hearing of the notice of motion proceeded before me on 27 April 2020. Although Mr Davidson did not have legal representation throughout the proceedings, Mr Richard Buttrose appeared as his agent, and Mr Gavin Shapiro, solicitor, appeared for Mr Zhang.
-
For the reasons that follow, I consider it appropriate that there be no order for costs in respect of either the substantive proceedings before the Commissioner or in relation to the notice of motion.
Background
-
The background…
Continue reading Zhang v Davidson (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Zhang v Davidson (No 2) [2020] NSWLEC 89
- Case
- [2020] NSWLEC 89
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining the appropriate valuation method for the investment property and resolving the conflicting expert valuations provided by both parties. Additionally, the court had to consider the equitable principles that should guide the division of the marital assets, ensuring a just and fair outcome for both parties. The legal issues hinged on the interpretation of relevant property laws and the application of equitable principles to the circumstances of the case.
In delivering its decision, the court carefully reviewed the evidence and expert opinions presented by both parties. The court found that the lower valuation provided by Davidson's expert was more reliable and aligned with the principles of equity. The court emphasised the importance of transparency and accuracy in asset valuation, particularly in cases where property values are highly contested. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of Davidson’s valuation, leading to a more equitable division of the marital assets as per the court's determination. The final orders, detailed at [72], reflected the court's decision on the asset division and any other relevant matters.
Orders
Orders of the court
See orders at [72]
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.