Max Leslie in court stoush against Robert and Janice Buttner over renos at Sanctuary Cove house

A dispute between neighbours over renovations at an exclusive address has reached court, resulting in a victory for one side.

A WAR between neighbours at an exclusive address has ended in a Supreme Court win for security kings Robert and Janice Buttner.

Next-door neighbour Maxwell Leslie took the Buttners and Sanctuary Cove Principal Body Corporate to court over renovation works at the harbourfront house they own on gated street The Parkway.

The Buttners, who founded the hugely successful Australian Security Company in 1983, purchased the four-bed, five-bathroom luxury property for $3.1m in December 2020.

Previous owners has rented the property – which includes a media room, gym room and cellar – for $4200 per week.

The couple were granted permission by the body corporate to renovate and extend the house, which would include a “gatehouse” and the realignment of the swimming pool.

According to the Supreme Court judgment, the extension would bring the Buttners’ house closer to the common boundary with Mr Leslie’s property.

Mr Leslie, who purchased his house for $2.875 million in October 2009, argued the body corporate’s decision to grant permission for the works was invalid because it did not comply with its Development Control By-Laws (DCBLs). He sought an injunction halting the extension towards his boundary and the removal of work already completed.

The judgment reveals a builder contracted to perform the work for the Buttners estimated the cost of such changes at more than $400,000.

Robert and Janice Buttner.

In dismissing Mr Leslie’s application, the Supreme Court ruled the applicant had “failed to establish that the approved works do not comply with the DCBLs” and that the works would have “limited impact on the applicant’s amenity”.

“The applicant has not put on any evidence as to the diminution in the value of (his property) that would be caused if the works are undertaken,” it said.

Mr Leslie did score a small consolation victory, with the court siding with him on the matter of costs.

Lawyers for the Buttners and the body corporate had asked for Mr Leslie to pay costs on the “indemnity basis”, meaning he would foot the bulk of their bill.

They argued he had “acted unreasonably in refusing offers of settlement” and “prolonged the case unduly,” when “he should have known that he had no chance of success”.

The court rejected those arguments, ruling Mr Leslie pay the respondents’ costs “on the standard basis”, which means they will receive less.

Follow @keithjwoods