Dividing Fence Substantially Complies with Agreement
📌 In brief
The NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal dismissed an appeal regarding a dividing fence. The fence was deemed to substantially comply with the agreement between the parties, even though it slightly deviated from the original quote.
⚖️ Legal holding
A dividing fence substantially complies with an agreement if it adheres closely to the terms of the agreement.
📚 Full judgment
The summary, holding and questions above are VadeLab’s own material. The official decision itself is published by the court, and we do not reproduce it on this page.
📄 Read the full judgment⚖️ View on the official court website ↗
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The fence substantially complied with the agreement because it adhered closely to the terms of the quote.
- The presence of sleepers or boards did not affect the substantial compliance as they were not explicitly mentioned in the agreement.
- The fence's level relative to the earth batter and the Respondent’s house slab was considered in context.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The argument that the fence did not comply because it included sleepers or boards was rejected.
- The claim that the fence should have been constructed at natural ground level was not supported by the agreement.
- The request to rely on new evidence obtained after the initial decision was denied.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether a dividing fence erected between two properties substantially complied with an agreement between the parties.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the fence substantially complied with the agreement because it adhered closely to the terms of the agreement, despite minor deviations.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Dividing Fences Act 1991 (NSW) sections 14, 15, and 16 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the fence substantially complied with the agreement, as it adhered closely to the terms of the agreement.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the person who brought the case, as the appeal was dismissed.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For someone in a similar situation, a dividing fence can be deemed to substantially comply with an agreement if it adheres closely to the terms of the agreement, even with minor deviations.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence and documents that mattered included the original quote, the agreement reached during mediation, and the description of how the fence was constructed.