A 17-year battle over a fence and boundary line may have finally come to a close, after a supreme court judge decided who would foot the bill.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
When Rodney and Christine Smart moved into their Trevallyn home - nestled next to a 150-year-old laneway - in 2005, they were informed by the City of Launceston council that the fence running between the laneway and the house needed to be moved.
The couple made efforts to buy the easement but were unable to due to several public objections and the sale didn't progress.
Almost a decade ago, the council won a court case regarding the laneway, which left Mrs Smart with just three weeks to move the 30-metre fence about one metre closer to her house, most likely destroying part of her garden in the process.
The Smarts then appealed this to the Supreme Court who ruled in favour of the couple in April 2022, some ten years later.
The council is currently considering its options for progressing this matter to a conclusion.
- City of Launceston mayor Albert van Zetten
The courts then took time to decide whether costs associated with the years-long legal battle should be awarded to the winning party - this decision was handed down on August 12.
Justice Michael Brett decided that no costings would be awarded to Mr and Mrs Smart and each party would need to cover their own legal costs.
The reasoning behind the outcome was the defendant, council, was entitled to take a cautious approach to this matter and that legal proceedings could not have been avoided. He found council had not contributed to any unnecessary or drawn-out procedures.
Mrs Smart said she was disappointed with the outcome, as she had thought the judge was leaning in their favour.
"I was obviously wrong," Mrs Smart said. She said she would like to buy the easement if the price is right.
City of Launceston mayor Albert van Zetten said council welcomed the decision over legal costs.
"We are pleased to see this long-running issue is now drawing to a close," he said. "The council is currently considering its options for progressing this matter to a conclusion."
Justice Brett outlined the defendant (council) had no alternative but to participate in the proceedings which was why he did not take the "usual order" in respect to costs.
"The defendant appropriately and reasonably fulfilled its role as contradictor without causing any unnecessary expense in the conduct of the proceedings," he wrote.
Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content:
- Bookmark www.examiner.com.au
- Make sure you are signed up for our breaking and regular headlines newsletters
- Follow us on Twitter: @examineronline
- Follow us on Instagram: @examineronline
- Follow us on Google News: The Examiner