In the
1860s objections by Taranaki Maori to colonial settlement saw survey pegs
pulled out as a mark of resistance. Now
150 years on, Ngai Tahu faced similar tactics and sued a Christchurch couple for
tearing down a disputed boundary fence.
The High Court was told Brian Gosney and Audrey
Edwards object to a fence being constructed on their boundary by Ngai Tahu at
its Prestons subdivision in north-east Christchurch. There were initial arguments over the precise
boundary and an ongoing dispute over access.
The District Court issued an injunction preventing Mr Gosney and Ms
Edwards from obstructing construction.
They appealed.
The Fencing Act sets out rules governing
boundary fences. If neighbours can agree
on the style and positioning of a fence, their agreement prevails. Failing that, a court order is required.
Ngai Tahu argued that since it was paying the
full cost of the fence, it was free to decide the style of fence and then build
it on the boundary line. Justice Gendall
disagreed. He said even when one
neighbour is meeting the full cost, the fence cannot straddle the boundary line
without the neighbours’ consent. This
amounts to a trespass on the neighbouring property. Ngai Tahu was trespassing on the neighbours
land by constructing a fence on the boundary line without either the
neighbours’ consent or a court order, His Honour said.
Justice Gendall said this situation requires
nothing more or less than discussion and negotiation between the
neighbours. He ordered that the District
Court injunction expire after fourteen days, with the two week delay intended
to give the warring neighbours time to reach some agreement.
Gosney
v. Ngai Tahu – High Court (17.03.15)
15.021