A neighbourhood activist who campaigned against numerous "inappropriate" developments has been ordered to demolish a fence she erected on her own property in breach of a court ruling.
It is the latest judgment in an extraordinary 12-year dispute between multiple Ryde neighbours that has dragged through several courts, racked up hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal costs and generated accusations of domestic spying and fraud.
Jeneatte Minifie, convener of the Ryde Community Alliance, has been ordered to demolish her fence.Credit: Facebook
Jeanette Minifie, the convener of the Ryde Community Alliance, was ordered to demolish the fence she built to shield her East Ryde home from neighbours Stuart and Jieming Maxwell, after losing an appeal last week.
In its judgment the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal appeal panel noted: "As is sadly not an unusual occurrence in dividing fence disputes that come before the Tribunal, there was a history of discord and animosity between the parties over various issues pertaining to their relationship as neighbours."
The rogue fence had its roots in a fracas that started as far back as 2008, when Ms Minifie and her former partner, Noel Plumb, were involved in a dispute with a different neighbour, Anthony Saba, after Mr Saba cut down some trees.
Court records show that in 2011 an "incident" occurred between the neighbours, leading police to bring an apprehended violence order against Mr Plumb, while Mr Plumb unsuccessfully sought an AVO against Mr Saba. The police AVO was later set aside on appeal.
Residents at war: the three neighbouring properties meet at a cul de sac in East Ryde.Credit: Wolter Peeters
But the incident would take a personal toll, with Ms Minifie and Mr Plumb telling the court their defacto marriage broke down in part because the AVO proceedings had "consumed" Mr Plumb to the extent that "he was obsessed about his court case against Mr Saba and about conservation work and was generally depressed".
As part of a Family Court ruling, Mr Plumb agreed to transfer his quarter-share of the house to Ms Minifie in exchange for a personal right to reside at the property for life.
Mr Plumb ended up appealing the dismissal of his AVO against his neighbour, Mr Saba, but lost, leading him to face legal costs of $232,187. With the share of the house no longer in his name, he was unable to pay.
Mr Saba commenced legal proceedings in which he alleged the breakdown of Ms Minifie and Mr Plumb's relationship was faked. He relied on affidavits from another neighbour, Mr Maxwell, who had "observed" the pair gardening together, entertaining guests, eating breakfast and "talking to each other".
Mr Maxwell told the court he'd seen Ms Minifie hang up Mr Plumb's washing on the clothes line many times, "although Mr Plumb had not reciprocated by hanging Ms Minifie's washing". But the Supreme Court rejected that evidence and ruled the relationship breakdown was genuine.
As such, the court upheld that Mr Plumb hadn't intended to hinder, delay or defraud his creditors. Mr Saba applied for special leave to appeal to the High Court, but was rejected.
Concerned that she was being spied on by Mr Maxwell, Ms Minifie wanted to construct a dividing fence between the two properties, but ended up in another dispute with Mr Maxwell over the type and height. In 2017, a tribunal ordered the two neighbours to obtain quotes for a certain type of fence, decide on one and split the costs.
Mr Maxwell obtained a quote that also used the word "estimate". Mr Plumb - who still lives with Ms Minifie at the house - told Mr Maxwell in an email the quote was "rejected" and it would be "futile" to obtain another one. On the same day, Ms Minifie unilaterally began constructing her own fence.
In the legal dispute that followed, Ms Minifie argued that an "estimate" was not a "quote", and Mr Maxwell had therefore failed to fulfil his obligations under the tribunal's original order. The tribunal did not accept her claims and ruled in Mr Maxwell's favour.
Last week, an appeal panel upheld that ruling and dismissed Ms Minifie's appeal, finding no errors in law were made. Her barrister Paul Glissan said it was a "surprising decision" but his client would not appeal further and would demolish the fence. She still faces possible contempt proceedings brought by Mr Maxwell.
Mr Glissan said the 12-year legal dispute was one of the most dramatic feuds he had encountered.
"It was an absolutely enormous neighbourhood battle going on between Mr Saba and Mr Plumb," he said. "It's exceptional, really."