Case Review:
Bilic & Bilic V Nicholls [2013] QDC 110
Disputes between neighbours over issues such as dividing fences, pets, overhanging tree branches and noise can sometimes degenerate into vindictive campaigns of aggression, bullying and harassment.
The case of Bilic & Bilic v Nicholls [2013] QDC 110 is one example of a neighbourhood dispute which escalated to a point which saw the matter before the District Court of Queensland.
Background
The Plaintiffs, (the Bilic’s) were the owners of a property at 16 Charlane Street, Underwood (a suburb in South Brisbane) which they rented out to tenants.
A dispute over the demolition of a small block dividing wall between the Plaintiff’s property and the property at 18 Charlane Street arose between the Plaintiffs and the First and Second Defendants, (the Nicholls) who were the occupiers of 18 Charlane Street. The Nicholls were residing at 18 Charlane Street while paying off what was effectively a hire purchase arrangement with the registered owner of the property, the Third Defendant (Jimi Lee).
The Plaintiff’s case was that the Nicholls engaged in behaviour, aimed at forcing the Bilics to demolish the block wall and erect a replacement wall at the Bilic’s expense. The course of conduct was alleged to include trespass, violence, threats of death, assault, wilful destruction of the plaintiff’s property, repeated unfounded complaints to both the Qld Police Service and the Logan City Council and harassment of the Plaintiff’s Real Estate Agent who was originally residing at 16 Charlane Street and was forced out by the Nicholls behaviour.
Despite each filing Defences, the three Defendants, did not appear at the trial. This meant the Trial Judge only heard evidence from the Plaintiff’s witnesses.
At the hearing the Judge heard evidence from the Plaintiffs, Dragan and Vesna Bilic as well as their son Nicola Bilic and real estate agent Safet Milicevic.
The Decision
The Judge found:
- The First Defendant trespassed on the Bilic’s property by using a digger to excavate into the Bilic’s property by between 1 and 2 metres. The dirt was first dumped in the front of the Nicholl’s property and then dumped onto the Bilic’s property.
- The First Defendant trespassed on the Billic’s property by throwing mud at the Bilic’s house and yard.
- The First and/or Second Defendants committed the tort
- Continual surveillance of the Bilic’s property
- The Second Defendant filming the Bilics when the Nicholls travelled to the Bilic’s home at Sunnybank Hills to deliver a letter. During this encounter,the First Defendant threatened to kill the Plaintiffs.
- The First Defendant threatening the Plaintiffs and racially vilifying them as well as vilifying the sexual orientation of their son.
- Making thirty or forty unwarranted complaints to the Logan City Council about the Plaintiff’s property, (including a complaint about the soil and pieces of concrete which were in fact dumped on the Plaintiff’s property by the First Defendant which led to the Council issuing a direction to remedy nuisance to the Bilics.
- The First and Second Defendants committed the tort of interference with contractual relations through their behaviour which resulted in the Plaintiff’s tenancy agreement being terminated and interfered with the letting or sale of the property by:-
- Displaying a sign on the telephone post of the footpath between the properties
- Jimi Lee was liable as a principal for the acts of the Nicholls.
Judge Dearden of the District Court of Queensland gave a judgement in the Bilic’s favour for – $155,573.00 plus costs comprised of:
- Compensation for the reduction in Market Value of the Bilic’s property from $408,000.00 as at 25 October 2010 to the sale price of $335,00.00 = $73,000.00
- Aggravated compensatory damages = $30,000.00
- Interest on $103,000.00 at 10% per annum from 15 March 2011 to 17 May 2013 = $22,351.00
- Exemplary damages = $30,000.00
Total $155,573.00
The award for aggravated damages was granted after the Judge accepted that the conduct of the first and second defendants caused significant stress to the Bilics which caused feelings of depression, anxiety, humiliation and fear.
The award for exemplary damages was granted after the Judge accepted that the conduct of the first and second defendants showed a conscious disregard for the Bilic’s rights and the defendants should be deterred from committing similar conduct again.
Conclusion
While court action should be seen as an option of last resort, for parties involved in neighbourhood disputes this case shows that there are remedies available through the courts for neighbours who suffer a financial loss arising from aggressive and harassing tactics employed by a belligerent neighbour. The decision also shows that the courts are prepared to punish neighbours who employ these tactics to cause harm to their neighbours.
