Fence replacement dispute between Sunshine Coast properties reaches tribunal

A neighbourly dispute over a broken fence has snowballed to a tribunal, with accusations of contempt and hopes of exacting punishment fired.

A dispute over a dividing fence has reached a tribunal. Photos: generic

A dispute regarding a fence between neighbours has been taken up to a tribunal, arguing whether it is in the interest of justice for a lawyer to represent the parties.

The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal matter relates to a dispute over a fence between the properties of Stuart Milne and Amanda Porter and their neighbours Enrico and Karen Mantarro.

It is believed their properties lie within the Sunshine Coast region.

Mr Milne and Ms Porter were initially given orders to repair the existing fence, then to replace it entirely.

The pair have since applied for orders to be made in order to punish Mr and Ms Mantarro for contempt, and for “costs on an indemnity basis”.

The Mantarro pair have, in return, applied for the contempt application to be dismissed and for different orders to be made regarding the fence.

Mr Milne and Ms Porter also applied for a lawyer to represent them in future proceedings which, in March this year, judicial member Peter Lyons delivered his decision on.

Submissions made in favour of legal representation by Mr Milne and Ms Porter state it would be in the “interests of justice”.

The argument was also made that future proceedings regarding contempt would result in complex questions about the law, meaning the Tribunal would benefit from legal representation.

It was stated in documents a lawyer would be able to assist the Tribunal in “complex legal and factual issues” and its obligation to deal with matters in a fair, just, economical, informal and quick manner.

The proceedings relate to a fence dividing two properties, believed to be on the Sunshine Coast. Photo: iStock

Mr Milne and Ms Porter also submitted complexity would arise from several matters, including the dispute on whether the fence was on common boundary and whether the pair were able to construct a fence which is of a greater standard than initially ordered.

On the other hand, Mr and Ms Mantarro opposed the application for legal representation, stating it would bring complexity and costs to a simple matter.

In their submissions, it is suggested their neighbours did not provide sufficient evidence to prove they had contravened orders, and are in contempt themselves.

“The applicants (Mr Milne and Ms Porter) seek leave to be legally represented for the purpose of assigning blame and exacting punishment against the respondents,” documents read.

In considering relevant legislation, Mr Lyons noted parties representing themselves support the Tribunal in dealing with matters economically and informally.

In contrast, the interests of justice were considered, with “significant complexities” to emerge in future proceedings.

These would include the Tribunal to consider its powers in dealing with contempt, what evidence is needed to establish one of the parties is of contempt, and what orders are to be made.

It was pointed out that hiring lawyers would result in costs to the involved parties, but legal representation would be of assistance in identifying “real issues” as well as relevant evidence and legal principles in order to reach a decision.

Mr Lyons said the Mantarros did not provide evidence supporting their submission which notioned their neighbours had sought for legal representation to assign blame and exact punishment.

“On the other hand, there is a strong likelihood that a non-lawyer, bringing proceedings for contempt, would wish to have legal representation to deal with such a matter,” documents read.

“The respondents’ submission is not made out.”

The decision was ultimately made to allow the parties to have legal representation in future proceedings.

Originally published as Fence replacement dispute between Sunshine Coast properties reaches tribunal