Liability for Deteriorating Retaining Walls20 August 2023 in Property Dispute Lawyers
Retaining walls are often built between adjoining properties situated at different levels. Some of these walls are old and no longer conform to modern building codes. This situation leads to an important question: who bears the onus when these retaining walls deteriorate?
Determining liability relies on specific circumstances. However, we can gain a valuable understanding of how courts address this matter from a prominent legal ruling in the case of Yared v Glenhurst Gardens  NSWSC 11.
Yared v Glenhurst Gardens  NSWSC 11
In this case, the defendant owned a property adjacent to the plaintiff’s land with a common boundary. The defendant’s property stood four to seven metres higher than the plaintiff’s property. The retaining wall supported a steep embankment along the common boundary. The wall, constructed in accordance with 1927 standards, intersected with the boundary. Heavy rainfall precipitated a partial collapse of the retaining wall, leading to a large amount of debris falling onto the plaintiff’s land.
The plaintiff initiated legal action, seeking damages. The claims contended that the fill material amassed by the defendant above and behind the retaining wall amounted to a legal nuisance. Furthermore, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s negligence in not maintaining the trees and vegetation on their property contributed to the collapse. The defendant countered with a cross-claim, asserting that the plaintiff’s negligence in preserving the structural stability of the wall posed a hazard to her property that the plaintiff had failed to address.
The plaintiff drew from the English Court of Appeal’s precedent in Leakey v National Trust  1 QB 485. This precedent establishes that a landowner, when they are or should be aware of a hazardous condition on their land jeopardising neighbouring properties, is obliged to take reasonable measures to prevent or minimise risks.
Justice Austin expressed that while they were not directly binding, the principles from Leakey’s Case were applicable in this jurisdiction. He noted that the retaining wall yielded benefits to both parties: it retained the defendant’s soil and facilitated the plaintiff’s land use while protecting against landslips.
Justice Austin said that it is the duty of the defendant to take reasonable actions in the given circumstances. He deemed it fitting for the defendant to contribute a proportionate share (in this case half) of the remedial expenses and grant access to contractors for the repair work.
Dividing Fences Act 1991
The sharing of costs for a dividing wall between adjacent landowners is governed by the Dividing Fences Act 1991 (NSW). Section 3 of the Act provides that a dividing fence includes a retaining wall only when that wall serves as a needed foundation or support for maintaining the fence’s stability and upkeep.
In situations where neighbouring property owners are entangled in disputes over the liability for a deteriorating retaining wall, pursuing legal action can result in considerable inconvenience and financial burden. Parties share an interest in preserving the stability of the land along their common boundary and implementing corrective measures to ensure the integrity of both properties.
The case of Yared v Glenhurst Gardens 2002 NSWSC is consistent with the Dividing Fences Act 1991 (NSW) in that both parties share an equal liability for the maintenance of a retaining wall on a common boundary and a dividing fence.
Call us to arrange a free 20 minute no obligation consultation that includes case evaluation and cost estimate.