‘Good fences make good neighbours’: Warring rich families take wall fight to the WA Supreme Court

Two wealthy neighbours are at war over a “sliver of land hardly wide enough to accommodate a punnet of petunias”.

Two neighbouring families in one of Perth’s wealthiest suburbs are locked in a legal fight over a wall that a judge has described as a “sliver of land hardly wide enough to accommodate a punnet of petunias”.

Such is the value of land in the leafy suburb of Peppermint Grove that the battle between the rich homeowners has gone to the West Australian Supreme Court.

According to court documents, instead of building a wall on the boundary line of the two mansions in 1991, Valerie and Tom Crage erected it entirely on their own lot.

In 2009, Alison and Anthony Wooles constructed a wall on the footings for a length of 26m from The Esplanade, which the Crage family says was on their land.

“The plaintiffs (the Crage family) say that the defendants (the Wooles family) have ‘previously committed the tort of trespass by planting vines and allowing them to grow over and damage the first and second walls’,” Master Craig Sanderson said in his judgment this week.

Two neighbouring families in one of Perth’s wealthiest suburbs have gone to war over a wall

“They allege that unless restrained from doing so, the defendants intend to commit further such heinous acts and that requires this court to issue an injunction to stop the defendants painting the first and second walls, or doing anything which is inconsistent with the plaintiffs’ ownership of the walls.

“In addition, the plaintiffs want a declaration they are the owners of their lot up to the boundary and a declaration that the defendants have no proprietary interest in the land of which the plaintiffs claim ownership.”

“Marvelling” at the “nature of the relief sought”, Master Sanderson said there was nothing to indicate the Crage family intended to demolish either wall.

“Presumably, what they wish to do is lean over the walls from time to time and ensure that the defendants are not in some way interfering with the surface of the wall facing the defendants’ property,” he said.

“They may also from time to time point out to the defendants that the wall is on their land and emphasise that fact ought not be forgotten.

“Otherwise the status quo, which has existed since 2009 when the second wall was constructed, would continue.”

Meanwhile, the Wooles family claims whoever built the wall got the line wrong, having started on their land and terminating on the Crage property.

“In other words, the wall is built straight but on a slight angle to the actual boundary line,” Master Sanderson said.

“That means the wall at some point crosses the boundary line but is partially on the defendants’ land.

“The defendants, although they plead this to be the case, make no point about the encroachment of the first wall on to their land. They appear to be prepared to live with that situation.”

The mansions are worth millions of dollars. Picture: NCA NewsWire news image photo

Under their argument, at its greatest point of deviation from the boundary, the first wall is no more than 135mm inside the Crage lot.

“This case concerns a sliver of land hardly wide enough to accommodate a punnet of petunias,” Master Sanderson said.

The Wooles also claim the second wall is “on or about” the common boundary of the lots.

They are claiming ownership of the area under the legal concept of adverse possession, which can result in ownership changing when the long-term use of land is adverse to the title.

Master Sanderson said the claim was arguable and the dispute was “best litigated once and for all so that the respective interests of the parties can be finally determined”.

“It might even be possible to produce a statement of agreed facts — although the chance of these parties agreeing on anything would seem to be no more than a pious hope,” he said.

“The great American poet Robert Frost said: ‘Good fences make good neighbours.’

“In this case, there is no doubting the quality of the fences.”