A decades long dispute between two brothers over a shared boundary came to a head in Bega Local Court last week.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The brothers did not look at each other during proceedings which saw Magistrate Mark Douglass order defendant Eric Johnston to pay his brother Norman Richard Johnston nearly $6000 for maintenance of a common boundary along Wolumla Creek at Frogs Hollow.
“It would be fair to say there’s tension,” Magistrate Mark Douglass said.
“The defence lacks clarity and the evidence was not persuasive.”
Norman’s solicitor Esther Colson said the case had been ongoing “for over 20 years” and that her client was seeking a resolution as each flood increases the damage to the boundary crossing.
“It has been before the court a number of times,” she said.
“They want it sorted.”
Ms Colson claimed Norman had been maintaining both crossings along the shared creek boundary and her client’s property was free of the drought tolerant African lovegrass weed and at risk of possible contamination from the weed growing in Eric’s adjoining property.
Eric, who represented himself in the small claims case, claimed his brother was using “bullying tactics over the last eight year” and he had maintained the fence in compliance with an earlier order from the Local Land Board stating the fence “should be constructed of materials sufficient to constrain sheep and cattle to their property of origin at all times”.
In 1999, Norman applied to the Local Land Board.
Their decision was that Norman would maintain the downstream crossing and Eric the upstream crossing, with the recommendation a flood prone area would require posts every three metres and seven plain wires in order to be stock proof.
Bega Valley Shire Council attempted to resolve this issue and in 2013 a settlement agreement was made in the local courts.
Following floods and erosion, Eric claimed the fence had been maintained in compliance with the order.
“It was there for 108 days before it was washed away,” he told Magistrate Douglass.
“The way I see it, is it’s a bullying tactic that’s gone on all my life.”
Eric said he had not expected the matter to be back before the courts and that he maintained two of three crossings, while Ms Colson claimed there were just two crossings, upstream and downstream.
Magistrate Douglass made note of the difficulties faced during self litigation.
“I’ve been asked to make a decision today,” he said after commenting on the defence case.
“Your defence is not supported by any detail,” he told Eric.