A retaining wall is a structure that supports excavated earth or backfill on land. The construction of a retaining wall often requires a development application (AD). Check with your local council. The Separation Fences Act 1991 governs how the cost of a separation fence is shared between neighbouring landowners. According to section 3 of the Act, a separation fence includes a retaining wall only if the retaining wall is a foundation or support necessary for the support and maintenance of the fence. Owners of adjacent properties are exposed to significant inconvenience and costs if they engage in a dispute over the responsibility not to maintain between their properties. Although not a direct authority, Justice Austin had no doubt that the principle would be followed in the case of Leakey in that country. He stated that the retaining wall had benefited the defendant by preserving its soil and the plaintiff by maximizing the use of its land and protecting it from landslides. His Honour stated that, although the respondent had a relevant duty in principle in the Leakey case, it was not an obligation to replace the retaining wall or to keep his land entirely at his own expense, but it was a duty to do what was appropriate in the circumstances, and no more and no less than that. On August 7, 1998, heavy rains fell, as a result of which the retaining wall partially collapsed and deposited a large amount of bricks, soil, vegetation and debris on the applicant`s property. When you live so close to you, it`s not always easy to get along with the neighbors. A common disagreement between neighbors is the sharing of borders. Different opinions often arise about the maintenance of the fence, the location of the border, the penetration of branches and bushes, fences and retaining walls.

This type of conflict, which often arises, is over who should pay for retaining wall or fencing work. They have a mutual interest in ensuring that properties on and around the common boundary of their properties are stable and that the rehabilitation work required to replace a retaining wall is carried out safely to protect the integrity and stability of both properties. Unfortunately, if you have a dispute with a neighbour about the cost of fencing and retaining walls, and you can`t come to an agreement yourself, you may have to resolve the issue in court. The same applies to sums due for repairs or replacements. The Separation Fencing Act, 1991 (the Act) now applies to retaining walls supporting a fence separating land from adjacent owners, whether on the common boundary of adjacent property or on a line other than the common boundary. Please read my other articles about retaining walls for more information. The defendant owned land behind the plaintiff`s property. There was a common boundary with the defendant`s assets. The area adjacent to the common boundary of the defendant`s property was four to seven metres higher than the area of the plaintiff`s property. The retaining wall supported a high dam on the sides of the common border. It was built according to the methods and standards used in 1927.

The border crossed the retaining wall. Retaining walls are not covered by the Separation Fencing Act 1991 unless the retaining wall is necessary to support and maintain the separation fence. A retaining wall often provides structural support for a higher plot and prevents the movement of the ground between the upper and lower parcels. In the event of a dispute over a retaining wall, an independent report from a structural engineer should be obtained. If you want to cover the cost of a retaining wall, the Separation Fencing Act, 1991 may not be the best way to approach such a shell. Disclaimer: This video is for educational purposes only and does not form the basis of a client/attorney relationship. Please do not rely on the content of this video for legal advice. but not a retaining wall (except in the cases provided for in paragraph c) or a wall that is part of a house, garage or other building.

The main question is whether a structure is a separation fence and whether a retaining wall is a foundation or support for a bulkhead fence, and this provision must take into account the purpose for which the structure or wall was constructed. The defendant claimed damages from the plaintiff, claiming that he had negligently failed to maintain the structural integrity of the wall and constituted a danger to his property that he had not diminished. In this video, we generally talk about the responsibility of the New South Wales retaining wall and who is responsible for maintenance and repair when neighbouring properties have a retaining wall. It is important to note that there are other laws that also apply to border disputes, such as the Transfers of Property Act 1919 and the Trees (Neighbour Disputes) Act 2006, and that court proceedings relating to retaining walls must be brought before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Fencing disputes involving fences sharing two adjacent properties are governed by the Division Fencing Act 1991. Border disputes are governed by the Real Property Act 1900. Disputes concerning retaining walls have no specific legislation, but retaining walls are in some cases covered by the Separation Fencing Act 1991. Since 2008, amendments to section 3 of the Separation Fencing Act 1991 (NSW) allow an adjacent owner to claim a contribution to carry out work on a retaining wall if the wall is required for the support and maintenance of a separation fence.

In Margy L Walsh v R. Tomsic [2014] NSWCATCD 118, it was found that in cases where work is required to repair a retaining wall for the primary purpose of being a retaining wall rather than being part of a separation fence (i.e., work required to immediately support a fence), No contribution from adjacent owners is available. The plaintiff sued the defendant for damages, alleging that the infill material deposited by the defendant above and behind the retaining wall was a legal nuisance and that the defendant had negligently removed trees and vegetation on its land where the backfill material was present.