Mayer v Bangar [2022] NSWCATAP 163

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Mayer v Bangar [2022] NSWCATAP 163 Hearing dates: 10 May 2022 Date of orders: 17 May 2022 Decision date: 17 May 2022 Jurisdiction: Appeal Panel Before: G Furness SC, Senior Member G Burton SC, Senior Member Decision: The Appeal is dismissed. Catchwords: DIVIDING FENCES ACT – negligent damage to dividing fence – order that each pay 50% Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Dividing Fences Act 1991 Cases Cited: Cominos v Di Rico [2016] NSWCATAP 5 New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation v Orr [2019] NSWCA 231 Prendergast v Western Murray Irrigation Ltd [2104] NSWCATAP 69 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Michael Mayer (Appellant) Sudesh Bangar and Amar Singh (Respondents) Representation: Appellant (Self-represented) Respondent (Self-represented) File Number(s): 2022/36974 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Citation: Not Applicable Date of Decision: 18 January 2022 Before: J Alder (General Member) File Number(s): COM 21/38639

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction 1. The Appellant, Michael Mayer and the Respondents, Sudesh Bangar and Amar Singh, own adjoining properties in Kellyville NSW and share a common boundary. About two years ago, the Respondents damaged the then 15 year old existing 1.8m high timber boundary fence when constructing a granny flat on their land. 2. On 13 September 2021, the Appellant applied to the Tribunal for an order under the Dividing Fences Act 1991 (the Act) that fencing work be carried out, describing the fencing work as removing the existing fence because it was damaged and dangerous and installing a new Colourbond fence 41 metres long and 2.4 metres high. 3. On 8 February 2022, the Appellant appealed from the decision of the Tribunal that the Appellant and the Respondents each pay 50% to replace the existing timber fence. The ground of the appeal is that it is unreasonable to be asked to pay for anything as the Appellant's privacy was affected by the construction of the granny flat and the Respondents had negligently damaged the existing fence.