Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Norrie v McLean[2016] QCAT 338

CITATION:

Norrie v McLean [2016] QCAT 338

PARTIES:

Terry Keith Norrie

Susan Carol Ivy Norrie

(Applicants)

v

Elaine McLean

(Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

MCDO51-16

MATTER TYPE:

Other minor civil dispute matters

HEARING DATES:

2 June 2016; 25 July 2016

HEARD AT:

Cleveland

DECISION OF:

Adjudicator Bertelsen

DELIVERED ON:

20 September 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

  1. A new dividing fence be erected on the common boundary between the properties of the parties.
  2. The fence be constructed in accordance with quotation dated 4 July 2016 by Ewen Fencing (a copy of which is attached to this order).
  3. The fence construction be arranged by the applicant.
  4. The fence construction be completed within 90 days of the date hereof.
  5. The respondent pay the applicant the sum of $1,408.00 within 14 days of completion of the fence.

CATCHWORDS:

Dividing fence – common boundary – fence construction – style – height – criteria for consideration

APPEARANCES:

APPLICANT:

Terry Keith Norrie and Susan Carol Ivy Norrie

RESPONDENT:

Cheryl Moran, Enduring Power of Attorney for Elaine McLean

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. [1]
    On 10 March 2016, Terry Keith Norrie and Susan Carol Ivy Norrie lodged an application in the Tribunal seeking the construction of a dividing fence between their property, 27 Wilson Esplanade, Victoria Point, and Elaine McLean’s property, 29 Wilson Esplanade, Victoria Point.
  2. [2]
    The application came before the Tribunal initially on 2 June 2016. An oral decision was given on the day which made it clear to the parties that a ‘Dune’ coloured 1.8m Colorbond fence was to be erected on the 31.25m common boundary, except for a 6m front boundary section which was to be 900mm high only i.e. proceeding from the front boundary line towards the rear of the common boundary for a length of 6m, the fence was to be 900mm and thereafter for the remaining 25.25m, 1.8m high.
  3. [3]
    At the time of initial hearing there were no quotes of any utility because it had been agreed at mediation that quotes ought to be obtained once the Tribunal had made a decision as to whether any further portion of the proposed dividing fence beyond 6m ought to be at a reduced 900mm height.
  4. [4]
    The application was adjourned to enable the parties to submit quotes in accord with the oral decision of 2 June 2016. Once done, final formal orders would be made.
  5. [5]
    The application came on for hearing again on 25 July 2016. Whilst some further discussion took place, particularly about the proposed fence being raked upwards from 900mm to 1.8m there was nothing in or about that discussion that convinced the Tribunal that any deviation from the decision of 2 June 2016 was necessary, other than to say that the parties were encouraged to continue to try and reach agreement in the interim as it appeared to the Tribunal that only the height of a portion of the fence remained in contention.
  6. [6]
    The relevant quote provided by Ms Moran was from Reflex Fencing and Patios Pty Ltd dated 5 July 2016 for $3,080.00.
  7. [7]
    Mr and Mrs Norrie provided three quotes: firstly, from Real Fencing dated 3 July 2016 for $3,561.37; secondly, from Maso’s Handyman Services (handwritten) undated for $2,565.00; and thirdly Ewen Fencing dated 4 July 2016 for $2,816.00.
  8. [8]
    Ms Moran’s quote from Reflex Fencing and Patios Pty Ltd records a BSA number, as does Mr and Mrs Norrie’s Ewen Fencing quote it also being the marginally less costly of the two.
  9. [9]
    Final orders will therefore be made in accord with Ewen Fencing’s quote as follows:
    1. A new dividing fence be erected on the common boundary between the properties of the parties.
    2. The fence be constructed in accordance with quotation dated 4 July 2016 by Ewen Fencing (a copy of which is attached to this order).
    3. The fence construction be arranged by the applicant.
    4. The fence construction be completed within 90 days of the date hereof.
    5. The respondent pay the applicant the sum of $1,408.00 within 14 days of completion of the fence.
Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Norrie v McLean

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Norrie v McLean

  • MNC:

    [2016] QCAT 338

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    J Bertelsen

  • Date:

    20 Sep 2016

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.