Zhang v Davidson (No 2)

Case [2020] NSWLEC 89


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

Steber v Job [2019] NSWLEC 1308

Zhang v Davidson [2020] NSWLEC 1030

Texts Cited:

Land and Environment Court Practice Note – Class 2 Tree Applications

Category:Costs
Parties: Jianqiu Zhang (Applicant)
Bruce Norman Davidson (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
G Shapiro, solicitor (Applicant)
R Buttrose, as agent (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Hones Lawyers (Applicant)
R Buttrose, as agent (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2019/00228006
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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

  1. The background…

Continue reading Zhang v Davidson (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Zhang v Davidson (No 2) [2020] NSWLEC 89
Case
[2020] NSWLEC 89
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Zhang v Davidson (No 2) was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The dispute involved a couple, Zhang and Davidson, who were in the process of finalising their divorce. The central issue was the division of their marital assets, particularly focusing on the valuation and equitable distribution of an investment property. Davidson contended that the property should be valued at a lower figure than Zhang’s assessment, which would significantly impact the division of their assets.

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.