It was not just about the letterbox, but the letterbox proved to be the blue touch paper which set off legal fireworks following a falling out between two neighbours in Remuera, Auckland. Damage to a letterbox progressed to disputes over a boundary fence and a threat to sue for defamation.
Properties at 22 & 22A Arney Crescent sit in one of the city’s more expensive suburbs. In September 2013, lawyer Michael Kyriak purchased 22A from the Bilkeys, owners of No. 22 next door. Each property had a letterbox on either side of a shared driveway, both amounting to a cavity inside a brick pillar. Mr Kyriak’s letterbox was badly damaged by a contractor using the shared driveway to work on the Bilkey property. The errant contractor reinstated the pillar, but without any cavity for a letterbox.
A three and a half day trial followed in the District Court. It transpired that the original letterbox in fact encroached onto neighbour’s land at No. 24 and that Mr Kyriak had no legal access to the site for either the old or the new letterbox used for No. 22A. The trial judge ruled it was an implied term in his agreement for sale and purchase that Mr Kyriak had the right to use a letterbox at the top of their shared driveway. The judge refused Mr Kyriak’s request for a registered easement to protect access to his letterbox.
Bundled in with the letterbox dispute was argument over their boundary fence. Mr Kyriak demanded the Bilkeys meet one half the cost of a new boundary fence plus a gate at the top of the shared drive. The trial judge dismissed this demand; the existing fence could be repaired. Mr Kyriak was held responsible for all repair costs.
This District Court trial amounted to round one. Round two was legal argument over payment of legal costs. Scale of costs for winning litigants in the District Court would see Mr Kyriak awarded some $34,500. District Court reduced the amount payable by 55 per cent: fifty per cent reflecting the fact most of the District Court trial was taken up with arguments about the fence and the gate (arguments Mr Kyriak lost) and another five per cent for both Mr Kyriak’s failure to comply on time with court orders to hand over documents and his unsuccessful attempt to introduce a claim in defamation just before the trial. Round three was an appeal to the High Court. The Bilkeys argued for a further reduction in the award of costs to Mr Kyriak. The Bilkeys said they should be entitled to claim costs of their defence to the fence dispute, as if it were a successful claim by them against Mr Kyriak and that Mr Kyriak’s refusal to accept offers to settle out of court should be taken into account. Their appeal was dismissed.
Bilkey v. Kyriak – High Court (25.02.21)
21.039