Iomaire Pty Ltd v Bruce & Anor [2026] QCAT 49

Building Units and Group Titles Act 1980 (Qld), s 6, s 7, s 8, s 9

Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), s 9, s 11, s 13, s 24, s 25, s 31, s 48

Land Title Act 1994 (Qld), sch 2

Neighbourhood Disputes (Dividing Fences and Trees) Act 2011 (Qld), s 3, s 42, s 44, s 45, s 46, s 47, s 48, s 49, s 52, s 61, s 62, s 63, s 64, s 65, s 66, s 71, s 72, s73, s 75, s 83, s 84

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 3, s 28, s 93

Body Corporate - Highlands Vista CTS 38691 & Ors v Taylor [2018] QCAT 244

Bowyer & Anor v Ortlipp & Anor [2019] QCATA 111

Brown & Anor v Wallace [2014] QCAT 461

Donaldson v The Body Corporate for Maple Court CTS 19593 [2022] QCAT 2

Dunstan & Anor v Hope Island Resort Principal Body Corporate (PBC) [2024] QCATA 20

Laing & Anor v Kokkinos & Anor (No 2) [2013] QCATA 247

Lowe v BGC Technical [2016] QCATA 124

Miles & Anor v Body Corporate for Solarus Residential Community Titles & Ors [2016] QCATA 130

Miles & Anor v Gough & Ors [2017] QCA 190

Neverfail Pty Ltd as Trustee for The Harris Siksna Family Trust & Anor v Radford [2016] QCATA 203

Robertson v Darvas [2016] QCAT 136

Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council [2004] NSWLEC 140

Van Bovene v Gay [2024] QCAT 319

Vecchio v Papavasiliou [2015] QCAT 70

Wells v Kennedy [2024] QCAT 239

WNZ Pty Ltd v Fuller [2018] QCAT 399

[1] Iomaire Pty Ltd ('Iomaire') is the owner of a lot in an apartment complex. At the time of the oral hearing Mrs Bruce was the owner of a house on land adjoining the apartment complex. The body corporate's common property and Mrs Bruce's land share a common boundary. Iomaire's apartment overlooks Mrs Bruce's land, which is located to the east/south-east of the apartment. During the proceedings Mrs Bruce contracted to sell her interest in her land to FT01 Pty Ltd ('FT01'). The evidence before me was that the contract of sale was due to settle shortly after the oral hearing took place.[1]

[2] Although there was no appearance by FT01 I proceeded to conduct the oral hearing,[2] as I was satisfied that FT01 had received notice of the direction joining it as a respondent and of the Tribunal Hearing.[3] A copy of an email exchange between Mr Costantini on behalf of Iomaire and FT01's legal representatives, was before me. It confirmed notice of the hearing date and advised that FT01 did not propose to be involved in the hearing.[4] FT01 has not formally opposed the orders being made.

[3] The Application, under the Neighbourhood Disputes (Dividing Fences and Trees) Act 2011 (Qld) ('ND Act'),[5] sought orders in respect of trees on Mrs Bruce's land, that Mrs Bruce:

(a) remove or prune the branches of the tree;

(b) pay the costs of carrying out the orders;

(c) remove or prune the tree to the level at least no higher than the level those trees where (sic) when the Applicant acquired the property and to ensure there is an enforceable management plan to maintain the trees to at least no higher than that level.'

(a) if the land affected by a tree is a lot recorded in the freehold land register under the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld) ('LTA'), a registered owner of the lot;

(b) if land affected by a tree is a parcel of land the subject of a plan under the Building Units and Group Titles Act 1980 (Qld) ('BUGT Act'), the body corporate for the plan.[6]

[6] The titles search for Iomaire's lot shows that it is a lot in a building unit plan ('BUP') and indicates that the title was created in July 1995.[7] A copy of the BUP is not in evidence before me. The evidence is, and I accept, that the building including Iomaire's apartment were in existence prior to Iomaire taking possession.

[7] There has been some uncertainty, and conflicting decisions, about whether an owner of a lot in a group title scheme created by registration of a plan under the BUGT Act is or is not a neighbour.[8]

[8] The provisions of the BUGT Act in relation to the creation of lots and common property by registration of building unit plans are substantially the same as those in respect of group title plans.[9]

[9] The Body Corporate confirmed that the proceedings by Iomaire were brought with its permission and authority and that the Body Corporate wished the Tribunal to deal with the Application as if the Body Corporate had made the Application.[10] Mrs Bruce does not dispute that the Application is brought by a neighbour under the ND Act.

[10] The Tribunal has, in contrast to the first two decisions referred to at [7], found that an apartment in a body corporate complex whilst being part of a community management scheme is also a lot recorded in the freehold land register under the LTA and that to the extent arguments raised relate to the common property, that is scheme land under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) ('BCCM A[11]').11 I accept that the BCCM Act has specific provisions addressing when the body corporate and lot owners are taken to be owners of land for the purposes of[12]he ND Act12 and that section 49(1)(b) of the ND Act specifically refers to 'scheme land' whereas section 49(1)(c) of the ND Act refers to 'a parcel of land the subject of a plan' under the BUGT Act.

[11] I find that the preferable interpretation of section 49 of the ND Act supports a finding that Iomaire is itself a neighbour for the purposes of section 49(1)(a) because:

(a) the BUGT Act is to be read and construed with and as an amendment of the LTA_._[13] This provision does not appear to have been expressly considered by the Tribunal in either of the first two cases referred to at [7] in reaching a contrary conclusion.

(b) when a plan has been registered each lot comprised therein may be dealt with in the same manner and form as any other land held under the provisions of the LTA (emphasis added).[14]

(c) the term 'parcel' is defined in the BUGT Act as meaning the land comprised in a plan.[15]

(d) the term 'plan' is defined in the BUGT Act as meaning a building units plan or a group titles plan.[16]

(e) the term 'lot' is not defined in the ND Act. It is defined in the BUGT Act as meaning a lot shown as such on a plan.[17] It is defined in the LTA to include a separate, distinct parcel of land created on the registration of a plan of subdivision and includes a lot under the BUGT Act.[18]

(f) the term 'registered owner' is not defined in the ND Act but is defined in the LTA to mean the person recorded in the freehold land register as the person entitled to the fee simple interest in the lot.[19]

(g) the title search on its face appears to indicate that the lot is recorded in the freehold land register. It is recorded as an estate in fee simple.[20]

[12] The Appeal Tribunal through similar reasoning found that the registered owners of a lot in a group title plan were 'a neighbour' for the purposes of section 49(1)(a) of the ND Act.[21]

[13] If I am wrong in that finding, the proceedings may continue in view of the body corporate's express authority in these proceedings.

[14] A neighbour may apply for an order under section 66 of the ND Act.[22]

[15] In documents filed on 21 December 2023,[23] at the oral hearing and in its final submissions,[24] Iomaire clarified the orders sought were:

(a) Trees 2 and 3 be removed;

(b) Trees 1, 4, 5, 6 and a tuckeroo tree between trees 5 and 6 be trimmed to the level at least no higher than the level those trees were when Iomaire acquired the property (preferably limit them to 2.5-3 metres) and that the trees be maintained at that level;

(c) Alternatively Trees 1, 4 and 5 be removed if the Tribunal finds that they cannot be pruned;

(d) That the respondent pay the costs of carrying out the orders.

[16] Iomaire contended that trees on Mrs Bruce's land are causing a substantial interference with its use and enjoyment of the apartment because the trees are interfering with the view from the living room, verandah and kitchen of the apartment. More recently the focus has been on the view from the verandah and living room, which has essentially the same aspect as the verandah.

[17] The undisputed evidence is that Iomaire took possession of the apartment on 6 November 2020.

[18] Mrs Bruce says that the Tribunal should 'stay' any orders made until the conclusion of FT01's Development Application ('DA') because it is seeking to clear the lot (including trees) to undertake a major development project and that upon the DA's approval all trees will be removed making any orders redundant. Mrs Bruce previously, unsuccessfully, applied to dismiss the Application on essentially the same basis.[25]

[19] There is limited evidence before me as to the DA and its status. As the Tribunal has previously found, and I agree, a DA prior to assessment and approval is not a sufficient reason to prevent a decision on its merits being made.[26]

[20] Alternatively, Mrs Bruce says the trees ought not be ordered to be removed because they are important for privacy, amenity and to prevent soil erosion, and that the obstruction across the side boundary is not severe when the totality of the view is considered. Mrs Bruce contends that the trees cannot be safely trimmed to reduce their height and that they pre-date her ownership of the land.[27]

[21] She says she has attempted to comply with her obligations under the ND Act since taking possession on 11 August 2011. She says that she has periodically contracted tree-loppers to maintain the trees to prevent serious injury or damage and to minimise interference with neighbours' use and enjoyment of their land whilst maintaining her privacy amenity. She says she has trimmed trees for safety and to keep branches away from the boundary but she has not trimmed trees to shape.

[22] The undisputed evidence is that during the pre-proceeding discussions between the parties Mrs Bruce engaged tree-loppers to perform some work to trees on her land. There is limited evidence before me as to the work performed.

[23] There is a factual dispute as to the nature and extent of the view at the time Iomaire took possession of the apartment and whether that view, when considered in totality, has been severely obstructed by the trees on Mrs Bruce's land.

[24] The Tribunal appointed a Tree Assessor, who provided a report following his inspection on 17 July 2023('the Report').[28] The Tree Assessor:

(a) assessed six trees, all of which were significantly more than 2.5 metres tall and mature.

(b) identified Trees 1, 4 and 5 as Cupaniopsis anarcardioides (tuckeroo) and Trees 2, 3 and 6 as Melaleuca quiquenervia (broad leaved paperbark).

(c) assessed the health of Trees 1-4 and 6 as fair and Tree 5 as good.

(d) assessed the structure of Trees 1, 3-6 as fair and Tree 2 as poor.

(e) recommended that Trees 2 and 3 be removed because Tree 2 has poor form and because Tree 3 will continue to grow both in lateral canopy and height.

(f) recommended that Trees 2 and 3 could be replaced by suitable native plants that do not exceed 6 m in mature height.

(g) estimated that Trees 1, 4, and 5 were 30-40 years old.

(h) gave evidence that Tree 6 had been a similar size for many years.

(i) estimated that Trees 2 and 3 were considerably younger than the other Trees and were likely to continue to grow.

(j) noted that the rear of Mrs Bruce's land slopes and the vegetation is 'vital to prevent erosion and scouring'.[29]

(k) noted that the vegetation 'is native and confers numerous benefits to the broader community, land retention and native fauna'.[30]

(l) noted that Trees 1-6 do not have a 'branching architecture that is suitable for the applicant's request to remove branches to reduce height.'[31]

(m) gave evidence that an increase in height of 1.5-3 metres since Iomaire took possession of its apartment was extremely unlikely as rapid growth is uncharacteristic of trees of the species and age.[32]

[25] Mrs Bruce originally submitted that she was content to adopt the recommendations in the Report and that she had not taken the recommended action as the Tree Assessor advised her to await the order. In her final submission[33] she submits that as Iomaire has not established its entitlement to orders, the removal of Trees 2 and 3, recommended in the Report, should be at its cost. She also notes that settlement of the sale to FT01 had completed.

[26] Iomaire challenges the conclusions of the Report because it says:

(a) the Report relies upon an image dated September 2013 to show that the vegetation occupies a similar footprint with far greater density of vegetation and relies upon inaccurate information that Iomaire obtained possession of its apartment in 2013 in forming his conclusions as to growth of the trees.

(b) the Tree Assessor did not sufficiently establish the basis for his opinions, which were contrary to photographic evidence and evidence of personal observations by the directors of Iomaire made available to him.

[27] Unfortunately, the Tree Assessor was not asked to be made available at the oral hearing to confirm the evidence in the Report and be questioned.

[28] Iomaire disputed the Tree Assessor's evidence that the view was not present at the time it took possession as Trees 1, 4, 5 and 6 would not have significantly grown in the intervening period because of their maturity.

[29] Iomaire relied upon photographic evidence, including video evidence, and witness statements from persons, who each were available to confirm their evidence and be questioned, who personally observed the view around the time Iomaire took possession and again more recently, which observations are consistent with the photographic evidence, that trees on Mrs Bruce's land have grown in that intervening time and have obstructed the pre-existing view.[34]

[30] Iomaire also relied upon various documented sources of information that tuckeroo trees typically grow to at least 8 metres and may grow to 15-20 metres in the local area. It says that trees less than 8 metres, Trees 1, 4 and 5, are likely to continue to grow unless they are trimmed or removed.

[31] In relation to the height of the trees as at November 2020 and subsequent growth I prefer the evidence relied upon by Iomaire to the evidence of the Tree Assessor, who was not available to be questioned as to his assumptions and his opinions. I am not bound to unquestioningly accept opinions expressed in the Report. The errors in the Report are unfortunate and call into question at least some of the opinions stated.

(a) Iomaire is the corporate trustee of a trust, the purpose of which is to hold the apartment;

(b) he is a director of Iomaire and a beneficiary under the Trust;

(c) the apartment is:

(i) made available to be rented out for holiday letting/short stays with a minimum of five nights and had been rented out for varying amounts of time since it was purchased; and

(ii) used for personal enjoyment by the beneficiaries under the Trust for varying amounts of time since it was purchased and that such usage in 2025 was about four to six weeks for the year.

[33] Ms Julie McLennan gave oral evidence that she is also both a director of Iomaire and a beneficiary under the Trust.

[34] At the oral hearing I made directions for the parties to file and serve submissions as to whether and how the applicant, which is not a natural person, may experience a substantial, ongoing and unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of its land, within the terms of the ND Act. Submissions have been received.[35]

[35] The delay in finalising this proceeding since the submissions have been received is extremely regrettable and relates in part to resourcing issues.

[36] Iomaire, as applicant, bears the onus of establishing on the balance of probabilities its entitlement to orders under the ND Act.

[37] Mr Costantini sought to include in the written submissions evidence about the usage of the apartment, which evidence was not available at the oral hearing.[36] I am not satisfied that leave should be granted to permit Iomaire to rely upon evidence that was not available at the oral hearing.

[38] The Tribunal is required to observe the rules of natural justice.[37] By essentially filing new evidence after the oral hearing, Iomaire has deprived the respondents of the opportunity to consider the evidence, file evidence in response and to question the relevant witness(es) at an oral hearing. If I granted leave for the new evidence to be received then further directions for the filing of evidence in response, and a further date for an oral hearing would likely be required to address natural justice considerations. This would further delay the determination of this matter contrary to the objects of the QCAT Act.[38] This is a factor against allowing leave.

[39] In considering whether to allow the new evidence I consider whether receiving it would likely produce a different result. The new evidence details the number of nights in financial years 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 the apartment was rented to guests other than the trust beneficiaries. The evidence at the oral hearing was that the apartment was from time to time rented out to guests other than the trust beneficiaries. Whilst the new evidence is more detailed than the oral evidence it is essentially to the same effect so I am not satisfied that it would likely produce a different result. This is a factor against allowing leave.

[40] In accordance with the Tribunal's directions Iomaire filed copies of title searches and a plan seeking to identify the location of each tree the subject of the Application and identify the species of trees.[39] The species were clarified in the Report.

(a) the trees identified in the Application, the Report and Iomaire's evidence are on land recorded in the freehold land register.[40]

(b) Iomaire is a neighbour.[41]

(c) the Application can be made in relation to two or more trees.[42]

(d) Mrs Bruce, as registered owner of the lot under the LTA was the tree-keeper for the Trees at the time the Application was filed and at the time of the oral hearing.[43]

(e) FT01 was joined as a respondent to the proceeding when the Tribunal became aware that it had entered into a contract of sale as purchaser.[44]

(f) upon becoming registered owner of the lot FT01 would become the tree-keeper for the Trees.

(g) the Body Corporate is also a neighbour in relation to the Trees.[45]

Have the pre-requisites of the ND Act been satisfied?

[42] I am satisfied that Iomaire has complied with the relevant pre-requisites set out in section 65 of the ND Act for the making of an order under section 66 of the ND Act.

[43] I am satisfied that Iomaire has made a reasonable effort to reach agreement with Mrs Bruce.[46] Mr Costantini gave evidence that he spoke to Mrs Bruce in around August 2022 about her plans to trim the trees and the trees' impact on Iomaire's views. There is also evidence before me that Iomaire contacted Mrs Bruce in writing on or about 13 September 2022, and 22 October 2022, and attempted to contact Mrs Bruce on 14 November 2022, and 28 November 2022 attempting to reach an agreement with Mrs Bruce prior to commencing the Application. Mrs Bruce did not dispute that attempts were made.

[44] There is no evidence before me that there is any relevant local law, local government scheme or local administrative process which Iomaire failed to employ to attempt to resolve the issue.[47] This dispute does not relate to land being affected because branches from the tree overhang the land. The pre-requisite provided for in section 65(c) of the ND Act does not apply.

[45] There is evidence before me that Iomaire served Mrs Bruce with a copy of the Application[48] and other persons it had reason to believe would be affected by the order sought, including the body corporate of the complex in which its apartment is situated.[49] Iomaire contends that no consent or other authorisation from a government authority is needed to carry out work on the Trees.[50] Mrs Bruce does not take issue with this contention. I am satisfied that it was not necessary to serve the local government authority.

[46] I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that an order is appropriate for the reasons set out below.

[47] The Tribunal has broad powers to hear and decide:[51]

...any matter in relation to a tree in which it is alleged that, as at the date of the application to QCAT, land is affected by the tree.

[48] Land is 'affected by a tree' at a particular time if branches overhang the land, the tree has caused, is causing or is likely within the next 12 months to cause serious injury to a person on the land, or serious damage to the land or any property on the land, or substantial, ongoing and unreasonable interference with the neighbour's use and enjoyment of the land,[52] and the land adjoins the land on which the tree is situated.[53] A tree is situated on land if the base of the tree is or was previously situated wholly or mainly on the land.[54]

[49] The Tribunal has broad powers to make an order it considers appropriate about a tree to remedy, restrain or prevent substantial, ongoing and unreasonable interference with a neighbour's use of their land.[55]

[50] The ND Act recognises the importance of trees in residential neighbourhoods. It makes clear that a living tree should not be removed or destroyed, unless the issue cannot otherwise be satisfactorily resolved.[56]

[51] Under the ND Act the tree-keeper is responsible for ensuring the trees do not cause serious injury to a person or serious damage to a person's land or property or substantial, ongoing and unreasonable interference with a person's use and enjoyment of a person's land.[57] Those obligations are in place whether or not the Tribunal makes an order.

[52] The primary consideration under the ND Act is the safety of any person.[58] There is no evidence before me that anyone's safety is at risk from the Trees.

Substantial, ongoing and unreasonable interference

[53] I am satisfied, on the balance of probability, that Trees 1-6 ('the Trees') cause substantial, ongoing and unreasonable interference or are likely to cause substantial, ongoing and unreasonable interference within the next 12 months.

[54] Iomaire relies upon obstruction of the view from its apartment as a substantial, ongoing and unreasonable interference with its use and enjoyment of its property.

[55] Where the interference is an obstruction of a view it must be a severe obstruction of a view, from a dwelling on the neighbour's land, that existed when the neighbour took possession of the land.[59] The trees must also be at least 2.5 m above the ground.[60]

[56] The Tribunal has previously found that a severe obstruction is one that must be considerable.[61]

[57] I accept that the Report demonstrates that each of Trees 1-6 are at least 2.5 metres above the ground. Iomaire seeks an order in respect of a tuckeroo tree growing between Tree 5 and Tree 6, which it says has the potential to further obstruct the remaining view. It estimates it has grown 1-1.5m between September 2022 and November 2023.[62] I have been unable to locate any evidence upon which I could rely to make a finding that this additional tree is, more likely than not, more than 2.5 metres above the ground. I am not satisfied that it is open for me to make orders in respect of that additional tree.

[58] Whether or not the obstruction by the Trees of the pre-existing view is severe for the purposes of the ND Act is a finding, which I am required to make, based upon all the evidence before me, including any relevant evidence in the Report.

Can a neighbour, who is not a natural person, experience a substantial, ongoing and unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of its land, where the interference is an obstruction of a view?

[59] I find, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that a neighbour who is not a natural person may be able to establish a substantial, ongoing and unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of the neighbour's land where the interference is an obstruction of a view.

[60] Iomaire contends that the trees interfere with its use of the land because it could not sell the apartment for the price it could if the sea view was not obstructed. As I understand the Application and submissions, it also contends that the obstruction of the sea view makes it a less desirable apartment to holiday let so that the income generated by the apartment is adversely affected. Iomaire also submits that the beneficiaries of the trust gave evidence that the obstruction of the view by the trees impacted adversely on their enjoyment or experience when staying at the apartment.

[61] It points to Wells v Kennedy where the Tribunal found that:[63]

There is a substantial and ongoing interference with the use and enjoyment of the land because the applicants now have, from their living area deck at least, a view of a hedge rather than a much more pleasing vista across a landscape to the ocean. The interference is not only with enjoyment but also with use in that the obstruction of the view would affect, for example, whether the applicants choose to relax on the deck or whether they could sell their property for the optimal price.

[62] In that case the neighbours seeking to protect their view were natural persons.

[63] Iomaire submits that 'whether the applicant is a natural person or not makes no difference to its standing and right to obtain relief ....where the use to which the land can be put (eg, income from rental and/or sale) and the amenity that the land possessed has been adversely impacted, such as by a valuable visual amenity such as panoramic ocean views being unreasonably/significantly restricted by tree growth on adjoining land.'[64]

[64] Iomaire submits, and I accept, that section 49 of the ND Act specifically contemplates that a body corporate may be a 'neighbour in relation to a particular tree .... if land is affected by the tree' as prescribed in section 49.[65] I do not accept that the ND Act therefore necessarily contemplates that a corporate neighbour is capable of suffering substantial, ongoing and unreasonable interference where a tree causes a severe obstruction of a pre-existing view. There are other ways in which land owned by a corporate neighbour may be affected by a tree e.g. branches may overhang the land,[66] it may have caused serious injury to a person on the land[67] or serious damage to the land or property on the land.[68]

[65] Iomaire referred me to Neverfail Pty Ltd as Trustee for The Harris Siksna Family Trust & Anor v Radford ('Neverfail')[69] as a case involving a corporate Trustee. However, the corporate Trustee was the tree-keeper rather than the neighbour seeking to protect its view. Iomaire did not refer me to any published decisions, and through my research I have not located any published decisions of this Tribunal, involving an entity other than a natural person, who was seeking to protect a view.

[66] The ND Act does not define 'person'. I accept that a reference to a person generally includes a reference to a corporation as well as an individual.[70] In interpreting the provision, the interpretation that will best achieve the purpose of the ND Act is to be preferred to any other interpretation.[71] The objects of the ND Act in relation to trees are to provide rules about each neighbour's responsibility for trees so that neighbours are generally able to resolve issues without a dispute arising[72] and to facilitate the resolution of any disputes that do arise.[73]

[67] I have had regard to the Explanatory Note relating to the Bill and the Explanatory Note upon the third reading of the Bill that contained this provision to assist in the interpretation.[74] It does not provide any clear assistance on this point.

[68] The phrase 'substantial, ongoing and unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of the neighbour's land' is to be interpreted considering the provisions of the ND Act as a whole and, in particular, sections 46(a)(ii)(C), 66(2)(b)(ii), 66(3) and 75 of the ND Act.

[69] Section 66(3) sets out the requirements to establish an interference with the use and enjoyment of the neighbour's land that is an obstruction of a view. Provided those matters are established, I accept, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that a neighbour who is not a natural person may be able to establish such an interference.

[70] Neighbours, who are natural persons, who seek to protect a view will usually give evidence of the frequency of use of the part of their land from which the view could be seen and the enjoyment they derived from spending time at such location(s) because of the view and how their use of their land has been impacted and their enjoyment has been reduced due to the obstruction. Neighbours, who are not natural persons, are not capable themselves of being impacted in that same sensory way. The evidence required to establish the interference is unreasonable is likely to be somewhat different. I am not satisfied that the impact on the beneficiaries' enjoyment may simply be substituted for the impact on Iomaire.

[71] The Appeal Tribunal in Miles & Anor v Body Corporate for Solarus Residential Community Titles & Ors[75] when considering similar provisions under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld), stated:

Loss of value cannot be a loss of use or enjoyment of a lot. Evidence of diminution in value of a lot may be relevant to whether there has been an interference with use or enjoyment but such evidence cannot of itself support such a finding. Such evidence would, at best, be a factor that might be considered by a decision maker as relevant in determining whether there has been an unreasonable interference. The relevance will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

[72] I accept that diminution in value is relevant to the issue of whether the interference claimed is unreasonable. In this case, there is some evidence that the obstruction of the view may diminish the value of the apartment.[76] Iomaire submits, and I accept, that a holiday apartment with an expansive ocean view is likely to be more attractive to potential renters than a holiday apartment without an ocean view or one with a partial ocean view. The listing agent for the property gave some evidence to support this proposition.

[73] There is no clear evidence before me as to the extent of the diminution in value or as to the extent of diminution of rental prospects.

[74] It is well established that in Australia, there is no general right to a view.[77]

[75] The ND Act creates a limited exception to that principle. Therefore, the right to a view must be construed according to the terms of the Act.[78]

[76] In Laing & Anor v Kokkinos & Anor (No 2) ('Laing')[79] the then President, Wilson J said:

[37] The meaning of 'severe obstruction' has been judicially considered in the context of not dissimilar legislation governing neighbourhood disputes in New South Wales... In Haindl v Daisch... the New South Wales Land and Environment Court ('LEC') observed that the assessment of severity involves both quantitative and qualitative elements... The LEC decision gave the following examples:

[If the] view comprises predominantly an unrelieved outlook towards unattractive and blank-walled built form and there is a only a limited viewing corridor or limited viewing corridors past that built form to some attractive more distant elements, whether natural or built and whether iconic or not, a significant reduction of the attractive elements by trees on an adjoining property may well constitute a severe contextual obstruction of the view from that viewing point. On the other hand, if the outlook is from an upper, living area level of the building across a 180 degrees generally uninterrupted vista of coastline, even a modestly significant interruption of part of that view caused by trees on an adjoining property might not constitute, in an overall context, a severe obstruction to that view...

[38] In determining the nature of the view that is obstructed, some assistance is also provided by using the planning principle in the earlier LEC decision of Tenacity Consulting v Warringah... In that decision, Roseth SC adopted a four step process for assessing the nature of the view with which there was interference caused by development... For the purpose of proceedings in the Tribunal's Neighbourhood Disputes jurisdiction, only the first three tests are relevant.

[39] The first step is to identify and value the type of views affected: water views and iconic views are valued more than views not of those things; and whole views are valued more highly than partial views.

[40] The second step identifies the part of the dwelling the views exist and the reasonableness of protecting views from such areas: views across side boundaries are more difficult to protect than front and rear boundaries; sittings (sic) views are more difficult to protect than standing views.

[41] The third step assesses the impact of the interference to the views of the whole property, not just for the view that is affected: views from living areas are more significant than from bedrooms or service areas, except those from kitchens which are highly valued. As Roseth SC said:

The impact may be assessed quantitatively, but in many cases this can be meaningless. For example, it is unhelpful to say the view loss is 20% if it includes one of the sails of the Opera House. It is usually more useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.

[43] The term 'view' is not defined in the Act and has no fixed legal meaning independent of the statutory context in which it is found. In the absence of clear definition, the basic rule of statutory construction is that it should be construed according to its natural and ordinary meaning; and, in a way that will best achieve the purpose of the relevant Act.

[45] I am persuaded the natural and ordinary meaning of the term, in the context in which it is found in the Act, is consistent with the approach adopted by the LEC:' a single view with various elements contained within, including the trees themselves, not multiple views requiring separate analysis.'

What was the nature of the view when Iomaire took possession of the property?

[77] I find that the view when Iomaire took possession was a view from the east north east to the east south east of ocean to the horizon seen over rooves, over trees, interrupted by some trees and an apartment building to the east north east and to the east south east over Mrs Bruce's land only interrupted by a palm tree on the body corporate's land[80] and which view included from time to time breaking waves out to the horizon seen over rooves and over trees over Mrs Bruce's land.

[78] The Appeal Tribunal has previously found:[81]

A view is a single view with various elements contained within, not multiple views requiring separate analysis. A dwelling may have multiple viewing locations from each of which there is a different view. When assessing a view, it is necessary to consider the totality of what can be seen from the viewing locations from the dwelling rather than segmenting those views.

[79] Iomaire's evidence is that the affected views are water (partial surf break and expansive ocean) views, which it says, and I accept, are acknowledged to be valued highly.

[80] Iomaire has relied upon various photographs during the proceeding as depicting the view as at the time it took possession. I accept that none of them were taken on 6 November 2020.

[81] Iomaire particularly relies upon three videos[82] and a composite photograph taken 26 November 2020 from the verandah facing east and east south east and a photograph taken in or about March or April 2023 from the verandah all taken from a standing position.[83] Iomaire submits that these videos and photographs demonstrate that:

(a) the area of the ocean view lost across the total ocean view is approximately 59%.

(b) the loss is considerable.

(c) the obstruction of Mrs Bruce's trees acts to break the expansive nature of the view which existed on acquisition resulting in a diminished partial view.

(d) there has been a complete loss of view of the surf break[84]and that this view arguably has greater value and is more iconic than other aspects of the view.

[82] Iomaire submits that the obstruction is severe now or at least within the next 12 months the trees are likely to cause a severe obstruction because they are likely to continue to grow further having regard to the growth since November 2020, which Mr Costantini estimates is 1.5-3 metres.

[83] Mrs Bruce says, and I accept, that the totality of the view from the apartment is much more extensive than just the view from the apartment across the side boundary to her land and towards the ocean. She denies the obstruction is severe and says variously that the obstruction is marginal, negligible or at best moderate.

[84] She challenges the photographs relied upon as representing the view as at 6 November 2020 because they were not taken sufficiently close to when Iomaire took possession.

[85] She refers to photographs from the sale advertisement for Iomaire's apartment, taken from the verandah and living room which depict sea views extending from the north to the east of the apartment over the top of trees and rooves, which depict more extensive foliage and a lessened seaview[85] than the images relied upon by Iomaire. Iomaire submits, and I accept, that the sale advertisement photographs showed the apartment at or prior to the time of listing, rather than as at possession on 6 November 2020.

[86] The listing agent gave evidence, and I accept, that he inspected the apartment on 5 November 2020 and noticed that the view to the south east had been enhanced by tree trimming.[86] His oral evidence is that:

(a) when first listed the apartment had 'a bit of a view' but once the pruning had been done it had a 'big open view' and that he could see the surf and part of the beach;

(b) the trees as trimmed were in line with the floor level of Iomaire's apartment;

(c) ocean views are valuable in such coastal locations.

[87] The 26 November 2020 images depict a view from the east north east to the east south east of ocean to the horizon seen over rooves, over trees, interrupted by some trees and an apartment building to the east north east and to the east south east over Mrs Bruce's land only interrupted by a palm tree on the body corporate's land.

[88] In the absence of evidence as to events occurring in the following 20 days, which may have impacted the view, and taking into account the evidence from the listing agent at his inspection on 5 November 2020, I find that, it is more likely than not, this was the view which existed from Iomaire's apartment on taking possession on 6 November 2020 because it was taken relatively shortly after taking possession. I also find, having regard to the listing agent's evidence that the view included from time to time breaking waves out to the horizon seen over rooves and over trees over Mrs Bruce's land, which is depicted in a photograph taken in January 2021,[87] a relatively short time after Iomaire took possession.

[89] The initial comparator photograph taken in 2023[88] only shows the part of the view over Ms Bruce's land and not the part of the view to the east north east. It shows that the palm tree on the body corporate's land had been removed.

[90] The videos taken in April and November 2023 are of the wider view. A photograph of the wider view taken on 17 July 2023 from the verandah is included in the Report.[89] These images depict a view from the east north east to the east south east of ocean to the horizon seen over rooves, over trees, interrupted by some trees to the east north east to a similar extent as the 26 November 2020 images and to the east south east over Mrs Bruce's land interrupted by:

(a) Tree 3, which has grown significantly above the horizon such that it fully obstructs the part of the view over it of the ocean to horizon view depicted in the November 2020 images;

(b) Tree 4, which has grown such that it fully obstructs the part of the view over it of the ocean to horizon view depicted in the November 2020 images;

(c) Tree 5, which has grown significantly above the horizon such that it fully obstructs the part of the view over it of the ocean to horizon view depicted in the November 2020 images. Other comparator photographs depict some glimpses of view through Tree 5 in April 2023[90] but that by November 2023 the foliage density has increased, reducing or eliminating those glimpses.[91]

[91] The remaining view across Mrs Bruce's land is a partial view to the north and south of Trees 3, 4 and 5.

[92] A photograph of the part of the view taken on 17 July 2023 from the corner of the verandah over Mrs Bruce's land is also included in the Report.[92] It depicts obstruction of that part of the view by Trees 3, 4 and 5 as described above. It also shows that a branch of Tree 6 has grown laterally in a north-easterly direction to partially obstruct the ocean to horizon view over rooves depicted in the November 2020 images further limiting the part of the view to the south of Trees 3, 4 and 5.[93] This is the area through which the wave break part of the view could previously be seen from Iomaire's apartment.

Where was the view seen? What is the reasonableness of protecting the view?

[93] Iomaire submits, and I accept, that the view was seen from various points along the verandah, the living room and from the kitchen window and that they are standing rather than sitting views. On balance, the view is reasonable to protect.

[94] The then Chief Justice Holmes, referring to the tests in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council[94] and Laing v Kokkinos (No 2),[95] with whom the other members of the Court of Appeal agreed, when considering similar provisions under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld), stated:[96]

I should not like to be taken to endorse the application of fixed multi-step tests from other jurisdictions in these matters. However, there is nothing remarkable in the broader proposition that regard may properly be had to both the qualitative and quantitative impacts of a contentious activity or structure, in order to determine whether it does constitute an interference and, if so, whether it is unreasonable.

[95] Whether it is an unreasonable interference and whether it is reasonable to restore such views depends upon the facts.[97]

[96] As observed by the Appeal Tribunal in Laing noted at [76] of these reasons:

(a) water views are more valued than most other views. The view sought to be protected is a water view.

(b) whole views are usually valued more highly than partial views. The view sought to be protected is a whole view.

(c) views across side boundaries are more difficult to protect than front and rear boundaries. The part of the view across Mrs Bruce's land is across a side boundary between the apartment complex and Mrs Bruce's land.

(d) sitting views are more difficult to protect than standing views. The view sought to be protected is a standing view.

(e) views from living areas are more significant than from bedrooms or service areas except those from kitchens which are highly valued, because of the amount of time people usually spend in and around the kitchen. The evidence is that the view from Iomaire's lot was from the living area and verandah, which I accept can be regarded as a living area. Ms McLennan gave evidence, and I accept, that views from the dining table and kitchen window enjoyed the same south east view across Mrs Bruce's land.

What is the extent of the view that is lost by the trees on the adjoining property? Are the trees causing a severe obstruction of that view?

[97] I find that the obstruction by the Trees of the view, when taken as a whole, which existed at the time Iomaire took possession, is severe because the obstruction of the view by the Trees is considerable.

(a) the affected views are qualitatively and quantitatively significant, particularly affecting highly valued views from the verandah and living room.

(b) it is reasonable to take steps to preserve them.

[99] The Appeal Tribunal has previously found:[98]

The consideration of whether an obstruction of a view is severe involves both a quantitative and a qualitative evaluation.

[100] The Court of Appeal in Miles & Anor v Gough & Ors[99] recognised that this requires an evaluation of 'not only the extent to which view is lost but the nature and value of the view lost.'

[101] In Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council[100] a qualitative scale for assessment of the extent of impact of negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating was suggested.

[102] Although the Trees do not impact the east north east part of the pre-existing view, they now obstruct the part of the pre-existing view across the side boundary, across Mrs Bruce's land towards the ocean. This part of the view had more expansive ocean views than the part of the view to the east north east. The loss of view from the verandah and living room is severe.

[103] I do not have sufficient evidence to make a finding as to the impact from the kitchen, because there are few images from the kitchen, however, I accept that it would likely be adversely affected.

[104] I find that qualitatively and quantitatively, when taken as a whole, the obstruction of the previously available views from Iomaire's property caused by the Trees is severe.

[105] If I am satisfied that a view from Iomaire's apartment, which existed when it took possession, has been severely obstructed by the Trees, then I am required to balance the interests of the parties by considering the matters listed in Chapter 3, Part 5, Division 4 of the Act, namely, sections 72, 73 and 75. I address those matters below.

If so, balance the interests of the parties considering the matters listed in Chapter 3, Part 5, Division 4 of the Act, namely, sections 72, 73 and 75. Is the interference as a result of the obstruction substantial, ongoing and unreasonable?

[106] I find that the interference caused by the obstruction by the Trees is substantial, ongoing and unreasonable.

[107] The Appeal Tribunal has previously found that:[101]

The use of the conjunctive in s 66 (2)(b)(ii) requires all three requirements to be present for interference to be established. The words "substantial", "ongoing" and "unreasonable" are not defined in the NDA and therefore carry their ordinary meaning. Substantial means "of considerable importance, size, or worth". Ongoing means "continuing; still in progress". Unreasonable means "beyond the limits of acceptability or fairness". Interference in order to satisfy s 66 (2)(b)(ii), must therefore be considerable and beyond the limits of acceptability.

[108] As observed in Ortlipp & Anor v Bowyer & Anor:[102]

Having decided that the obstruction of the view is a severe one, it does not automatically follow that the interference with the use and enjoyment of the land is substantial, ongoing and unreasonable. In Neverfail Pty Ltd as Trustee for The Harris Siksna Family Trust & Anor v Radford, the Appeal Tribunal identified a number of factors relevant to determining whether an interference is substantial, ongoing and unreasonable for the purposes of s 66(2)(b)(ii) of the ND Act, namely:

1. What is the nature and extent of the harm or interference said to be caused by the tree?
2. Is the neighbour abnormally sensitive to the harm or interference said to be caused by the tree?
3. Have all reasonable steps been taken by the tree keeper to minimise the harm or interference said to be caused by the tree?
4. What is the type and extent of damage claimed to have been suffered by the neighbour?

[109] Iomaire contends, and I accept, that the interference with the view will be ongoing if the trees are not maintained at a height no higher than they were when it acquired the apartment. I accept that the interference will be ongoing unless the Trees are trimmed or removed or they reach the end of their lives and die.

[110] Where there is a claim that a tree has caused or is causing substantial, ongoing and unreasonable interference, I may consider whether there is anything other than the tree which has contributed or is contributing to the interference and any steps taken by the tree-keeper or the neighbour to prevent or minimise the interference and whether the tree existed before the neighbour acquired the land.[103]

[111] The evidence is that the Trees existed at the time Iomaire acquired the apartment on or about 6 November 2020. There is no clear evidence as to when the Trees were planted and whether the apartment complex had been built at that time. Mrs Bruce's evidence is that the Trees pre-dated her ownership. The titles search for Iomaire's lot indicates that the title was created in July 1995.[104] The titles search for Mrs Bruce's land indicates that she took possession of the land in August 2011 and that the title was created in December 1955.[105] The ND Act commenced on 1 November 2011.

[112] As observed by the Tribunal in Van Bovene v Gay[106] where the relevant trees existed at the time of acquisition by the applicant, it is a matter to be evaluated when considering purchasing:

[54] ... The simple fact is trees will continue to increase in height as they grow until such time as they reach their maximum height or their end of life. If one of the aspects that drew him to acquire Unit 4 was the view, it should be expected that he would have taken the time to at the very least enquire as to what may be the case in years to come with the trees in question and whether the adjoining property owner had in mind the need to keep them at a certain height to maintain any view that the new residents of the apartment complex may have had at the time of purchase. He did not present any evidence to that effect.

[113] Iomaire does not contend it engaged with Mrs Bruce about the Trees prior to August 2022. This is not a factor in favour of making an order.

[114] There is no contention that Iomaire would not have purchased the apartment but for the view, which existed upon it taking possession. The evidence is that the view was improved by tree trimming at some point between listing and the pre-purchase inspection the day before settlement. There is no evidence before me as to the extent of the view at the time Iomaire contracted to purchase.

[115] I have earlier considered the nature and extent of the interference caused by the Trees in finding that the previous view has been severely obstructed. There is no evidence, upon which I could rely to find, that Iomaire is hypersensitive or abnormally sensitive to the trees or the interference caused by the Trees. There is some evidence before me that the obstruction will cause a diminution in value of the apartment and a diminution of its rental prospects.

[116] Mrs Bruce gave evidence as to steps she has taken to minimise the harm or interference by her trees. They included undertaking work from time to time as set out earlier at [20]. Iomaire acknowledged that she removed one tree impacting Iomaire on or about 31 October 2022 when she undertook work on trees on her land. In mid-November 2022, Iomaire offered to make a $500 contribution to the cost of trimming trees.

[117] I am required to consider various matters including the contribution to amenity the Trees make to the respondent's land, the local ecosystem, public amenity and privacy.[107]

[118] The Report provides some evidence of the contribution the Trees make to the local ecosystem, biodiversity, and contribution that the Trees make to the natural landscape and the scenic value of the land/locality.

(a) the contribution the Trees make to her privacy and amenity of the land.

(b) the contribution of the Trees to biodiversity and the impact on local birdlife of further reductions in trees on her land;

(c) the Trees assist to provide a buffer from ocean winds and noise from surrounding properties.

(d) the contribution the Trees make to limiting erosion.

[120] As referred to earlier FT01 has purchased the land and is likely to have become the Tree-keeper by the date of this decision. There is some evidence before me that it intends to redevelop the land and change the use of the land. It chose not to participate in these proceedings so there is no evidence before me that it values the contribution the Trees make to its privacy and amenity in the same way as Mrs Bruce. This lessens the weight I give to this consideration.

[121] Iomaire highlights that there is significant bushland in the near surrounds and is primarily seeking orders that trees be trimmed rather than removed.[108] I accept that removal of trees will lessen habitat to some extent even if there exists significant bushland nearby.

[122] On balance, I find that the interference is unreasonable.

What orders are appropriate to remedy, restrain or prevent substantial, ongoing and unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of Iomaire's land?

[123] To remedy or prevent ongoing interference with Iomaire's use and enjoyment of its land, I am satisfied that an order to remove trees is appropriate because, regrettably I am satisfied that the issue of the severe obstruction of the view, which constitutes a substantial, ongoing and unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of Iomaire's land cannot otherwise be satisfactorily resolved. It is also appropriate to order that suitable replacement trees may be planted to address potential erosion concerns and remaining issues of privacy.

[124] I adopt the finding in the Report that Trees 2 and 3 ought to be removed.

[125] The Tree Assessor's evidence is that Trees 1, 4 and 5 do not have branching structure, which enables trimming to achieve the reduction in height sought by Iomaire.[109] Iomaire has not provided clear evidence that the trees the subject of this dispute are capable of being trimmed to achieve their November 2020 level without affecting the health or structure of the trees.

[126] It points to previous trimming, after the sales listing photographs were taken and before 5 November 2020. There is limited evidence about which trees were trimmed and their pre-trimming height and branch structure.

[127] Iomaire seeks that the trees be trimmed to a height no more than 3 metres.[110] There is insufficient evidence that the Trees were no more than 3 metres as at 6 November 2020. The listing agent's evidence is that the trees, other than Tree 6, were no higher than floor level of Iomaire's apartment. There is no evidence of how far above ground level that is. The evidence is that:

(a) Mrs Bruce's land slopes down toward the rear boundary, which is where Trees 1 and 2 are located;

(b) Iomaire's apartment is on the upper floor of the complex;

(c) there is at least one apartment underneath Iomaire's apartment and from the photographs in evidence, the floor level of that apartment is raised to some extent above ground level.[111]

[128] Iomaire refers to other tuckeroo trees on Mrs Bruce's land, which have been trimmed. It asserts that if they can be trimmed safely then the subject trees can also. Whilst there is some evidence of trimming of other trees on Ms Bruce's land there is no evidence before me that the trimmed trees were of a similar height or branch structure or that their trimming had not affected their health or structure. There is insufficient evidence to persuade me that the inference Iomaire seeks to make should be preferred to the clear evidence to the contrary contained in the Report. Regrettably, I am not satisfied that the obstruction can be remedied by trimming Trees 1, 4 and 5.

[129] The Report is evidence that Trees 2 and 3 were seven and nine metres tall respectively at that time. Given that Mrs Bruce's land slopes away at the rear Tree 1, noted as six metres tall, is located behind Trees 2 and 3 and is difficult to see in the photographs. Trees 4 and 5 are closer to the buildings and are noted in the Report to be six and seven metres tall respectively. In view of the evidence of estimated growth given on behalf of Iomaire and doing the best that I can I adopt five metres at maturity as the appropriate height restriction for any replacement trees.

[130] Tree 6 requires trimming of branches so that its branches extending to the east north east do not continue to obstruct the pre-existing view. Mr Costantini gave evidence, which I accept having regard to the photographic evidence, that Tree 6 has grown laterally by approximately one to one and a half metres since 6 November 2020. It ought to be trimmed laterally by at least 150 centimetres and annually thereafter.

[131] To the extent that the Tree-keeper remains concerned about the issue of erosion and privacy it could be overcome by suitable replanting.

Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) ('HR Act')

[132] The HR Act commenced on 1 January 2020. All individuals in Queensland have human rights.[112] Mrs Bruce is the only party who is an individual. A human right may only be subjected to reasonable limitations.[113] Iomaire included some submissions in relation to the HR Act in its final written submissions.[114]

(a) I am not acting as a public entity because I am not acting in an administrative capacity.[115]

(b) I have interpreted statutory provisions, to the extent possible that is consistent with their purpose, in a way that is compatible with human rights.[116]

[134] In any event, I accept that this proceeding and the determination of it potentially impacts Mrs Bruce's rights to a fair hearing and I considered them. In conducting the hearing, I gave the parties the opportunity to give evidence and make submissions and to question witnesses for the other party. In coming to my decision, I have considered the oral submissions, oral evidence and the documents filed by the parties.[117]

[135] I accept that these proceedings and my decision potentially impacts other rights, in particular property rights[118] and the right to privacy and reputation.[119] I have considered Mrs Bruce's human rights and am satisfied that the decision is compatible with her human rights as any limitations on those rights are reasonable and justifiable.[120] Any limitation of the human rights is consistent with the objects of the Act[121] and the objects of the QCAT Act.[122]

[1] Email dated 7 January 2025, Exhibit 11.

[2] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 93 ('QCAT Act').

[3] Directions made 7 January 2025 emailed to its legal representatives 9 January 2025, Exhibit 1.

[4] Emails dated 13 January 2025 and 24 January 2025, Exhibit 2.

[8] Brown & Anor v Wallace [2014] QCAT 461; Donaldson v The Body Corporate for Maple Court CTS 19593 [2022] QCAT 2; Lowe v BGC Technical [2016] QCATA 124; Dunstan & Anor v Hope Island Resort Principal Body Corporate (PBC) [2024] QCATA 20.

[10] Letter dated 12 December 2022 noting the Committee's decision had been ratified by the Body Corporate in General Meeting on 12 December 2022; Exhibit 4, attachment B; WNZ Pty Ltd v Fuller [2018] QCAT 399.

[11] Van Bovene v Gay [2024] QCAT 319, [17].

[21] Lowe v BGC Technical [2016] QCATA 124; Dunstan & Anor v Hope Island Resort Principal Body Corporate (PBC) [2024] QCATA 20.

[25] Application for miscellaneous matters filed 19 December 2024. Directions 7 January 2025.

[26] Body Corporate - Highlands Vista CTS 38691 & Ors v Taylor [2018] QCAT 244.

[27] Submissions filed 5 February 2024, Exhibit 11, [1].

[32] The Tree Assessor assumed that Iomaire had possessed the apartment since 2013.

[34] Exhibit 7, attachment 2, attachment 3, attachment 4, attachment 5.

[35] Iomaire's submissions filed 7 February 2025; Mrs Bruce's submissions filed 20 February 2025; no submissions filed by FT01 Pty Ltd.

[36] Submissions filed 7 February 2025, [8](h).

[39] Letter dated and filed 19 December 2022; Exhibit 4.

[40] ND Act s 42(1)(a); Titles search dated 20 January 2025, Exhibit 8.

[41] ND Act s 49(1)(a); Titles search dated 13 December 2022, Exhibit 4, attachment D.

[43] Ibid s 48(1)(a); Titles search dated 20 January 2025, Exhibit 8.

[44] ND Act ss 83, 84; Direction made 7 January 2025.

[48] Ibid ss 65(d), 63(a); Affidavit of service filed 22 December 2022.

[61] Laing & Anor v Kokkinos & Anor (No 2) [2013] QCATA 247; Robertson v Darvas [2016] QCAT 136.

[63] [2024] QCAT 239, [30].

[64] Submissions filed 7 February 2025, [8](o).

[69] [2016] QCATA 203.

[70] Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) s 32D(1) ('AI Act').

[75] [2016] QCATA 130, [131].

[76] Exhibit 7, attachment 4, attachment 6.

[77] Laing v Kokkinos (No 2) [2013] QCATA 247.

[78] Vecchio v Papavasiliou [2015] QCAT 70.

[79] [2013] QCATA 247 (references omitted).

[81] Neverfail Pty Ltd as trustee for the Harris Siksna Family Trust & Anor v Radford [2016] QCATA 203, [31] (references omitted).

[82] Exhibit 7, USB, taken 26 November 2020, 23 April 2023 and 23 November 2023.

[85] Response, Exhibit 9, attachment 1.

[86] Exhibit 7, attachment 3, statement Michael Robinson.

[93] Exhibit 7, photos 10 and 11 also depict this.

[94] [2004] NSWLEC 140.

[95] [2013] QCATA 247.

[96] Miles & Anor v Gough & Ors [2017] QCA 190, [20].

[97] Bowyer & Anor v Ortlipp & Anor [2019] QCATA 111, [57]-[58]; Neverfail Pty Ltd as trustee for the Harris Siksna Family Trust & Anor v Radford [2016] QCATA 203, [86].

[98] Bowyer & Anor v Ortlipp & Anor [2019] QCATA 111, [75].

[99] [2017] QCA 190, [17].

[100] [2004] NSWLEC 140, [28].

[101] Neverfail Pty Ltd as trustee for the Harris Siksna Family Trust & Anor v Radford [2016] QCATA 203, [81] (references omitted).

[102] [2017] QCAT 225, [70] (references omitted).

[106] [2024] QCAT 319.