How $6000 fence sent Dysart neighbours to court

A dispute over an unwanted fence separating two homes has played out in a Queensland court as a couple fought to have it removed.

A dispute over an unwanted $6000 fence on the boundary line between two Central Queensland homes played out in court, pitting two neighbours against each other.

The fence was erected in November, 2021 between the two Dysart properties much to the dismay of Charles and Michele Tito, who had been away while the former sought medical treatment.

Two neighbours were pitted against each other in Mackay Magistrates Court after the Dysart residents at the home on the right erected a fence on their property boundary line. Picture: Supplied

A court heard the fence was not “aesthetically” pleasing to the couple and the colour reflected glare from the sun causing distress for Mrs Tito.

Now, the couple who built the fence have to pay to have it painted a new colour.

Mackay Magistrates Court heard Adam Jeacocke and Charissa Allan had placed a letter in Mr and Mrs Tito’s letterbox on October 22, 2021 stating if they did not receive a reply by 5pm, November 14 “they would consider no feedback being agreement”.

As a result, a chain wire fence which had existed between the two properties, was removed and a new $6000 fence was erected.

Mr and Mrs Tito had been away when the new fence was erected beside their Dysart home. Picture: Supplied

Mr and Mrs Tito filed an application with the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal in April 2021 for the removal of the fence and the matter went to hearing.

Magistrate Bronwyn Hartigan found the case turned on the fact the Titos “had no actual knowledge that the fence was going to be erected”.

“In my view actual knowledge is required before a fence is in fact erected,” Ms Hartigan said.

“It is not sufficient for Mr Jeacocke and Ms Allen to simply place the letter in the letter box hoping it would come to the attention of Mr and Mrs Tito.”

Dysart home owners must pay to have the fence they installed painted a different colour. Picture: Supplied

However, Ms Hartigan found the new fence was of better quality than the prior chain wire fence and it was not economical or in the interest of justice to have it removed.

She did say the Titos deserved a remedy “for the destruction of the fence that was previously there which they were happy with”.

The court heard Mr and Mrs Tito would consider it a just resolution “if the fence was painted” – because of her height when she stood in her kitchen the current whiteness of the fence “causes glare to shine in her eyes causing her upset and also physical distress”.

As a result, Ms Hartigan ordered the “painting of the fence in a colour that they would be happy with aesthetically”, which was grey.

Ms Hartigan awarded Mr and Mrs Tito $1110 in compensation, which is to go towards painting the fence.

Originally published as How $6000 fence sent Dysart neighbours to court