CITATION:	Pascoe-Dickens v Sant & Goninan [2015] QCATA 114	

PARTIES:	Josephine Pascoe-Dickens
(Applicant/Appellant)	
	v	
	Diana Sant
(First Respondent)
Dominique Goninan
(Second Respondent)	

APPLICATION NUMBER:	APL520-14	

MATTER TYPE:	Appeal	

HEARING DATE:	9 July 2015	

HEARD AT:	Brisbane	

DECISION OF:	Justice Carmody	

DELIVERED ON:	31 July 2015	

DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane 	

ORDERS MADE:	THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT
1.	Leave to appeal is refused.	
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL - MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – DIVIDING FENCES – where the Magistrate ordered the establishment of an adequate dividing fence between two contiguous parcels of land – whether the Magistrate committed any appellable error in finding that there was no existing adequate fence.	
		
APPEARANCES:	J Pascoe-Dickens for the applicant/appellant
	D Sant and D Goninan for the respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]	On 9 July 2015 I heard an application to appeal orders made by Magistrate Priestly in a dividing fences dispute between the parties.
[2]	At issue was whether the orders for a new dividing fence to be constructed as directed be confirmed or set aside.
[3]	The only substantial ground of appeal seems to be that the magistrate was misled about historical facts and circumstances into making a wrong order.
[4]	As I understood the applicant’s submission the alleged appellable error is the finding that the existing boundary structure was not a sufficient dividing fence within section 36 of the Neighbourhood Disputes (Dividing Fences and Trees) Act 2011 (Qld).
[5]	The parties disagree about whether the existing structure is a dividing fence or something else and whether it is on the boundary line or more on one side or the other.
[6]	There are also unresolved historical grievances between them over the fence.
[7]	Their relationship has been strained for years and shows no sign of improving in the near future.
[8]	However, there is nothing in the file indicating that the decision under appeal was made under a mistake of fact induced by deception or otherwise.  Nor is there any reason to suppose that relevant considerations were ignored or overlooked by the decision maker or that he gave any weight to irrelevant factors in the forensic process.
[9]	The finding of insufficiency was clearly open on the totality of the evidence the magistrate had available to resolve contested facts (see for example the applicant’s letter to the respondent dated 15 January, 2014 and the Townsville Community Legal Service letter to the Cairns Community Legal Centre dated 6/2/2014 and the Magistrate’s notes and reasons).
[10]	The applicant addressed me, in writing and orally, on a range of other matters she thought pertinent concerning enforcement issues, contentious relationship matters and other questions outside the scope of the tribunal’s jurisdiction. 
[11]	There is no discernable basis for granting the application for leave to appeal to correct error or remedy substantive injustice.
[12]	The application is, therefore, refused.
ORDER
[13]	Leave to appeal is refused.