Eggs became weapons in the dispute between the neighbours. Photo / Yipengge, Getty Images
Eggs became weapons in the dispute between the neighbours. Photo / Yipengge, Getty Images
Eggs became weapons in a neighbourhood dispute which escalated to the point where a restraining order was sought and High Court action occurred.
Julian Edward Lawton and his neighbour Denise Cheridah Sewell were at loggerheads to the point she “threw eggs at Mr Lawton’s car”, a newly-published High Court decisionsaid.
The pair live close to each other on Chaucer Rd North, Hospital Hill.
Lawton had access to the rear of his section via a right of way over part of her property.
In a decision issued last Wednesday, Justice Helen McQueen in the High Court at Napier said the car egg-throwing event occurred on December 20, 2020.
This involved the right of way being used by various tradespeople. The dispute escalated.
“This included Mr Lawton and Mr Simpson seeking to ‘trespass’ Ms Sewell from the right of way because of Ms Sewell’s actions, said to block passage along the right of way or otherwise inhibit Mr Lawton and/or Mr Simpson’s ability to use the right of way.
“This involved the use of signs on the right of way, which indicated that Ms Sewell was concerned about the use of the right of way, including by larger vehicles used by tradespeople, given children were often present in the area,” the High Court decision said.
“This also involved the placement of cars, a trampoline, teddy bears, and stones upon the right of way.”
On December 20, 2020, during an altercation with Lawton and his partner, Sewell threw eggs at Lawton’s car, the Judge added.
So Lawton sought a restraining order from the District Court.
But by the time that was heard, Lawton accepted the situation between the pair had been “good for nine months” since January 2021.
A teddy bear was cited in court evidence as an object used in the dispute. Photo / Getty Images
But he nevertheless pursued the application, pre-emptively to guard against the situation deteriorating in the future.
The District Court had to decide how serious the egg-throwing event was and also if Lawton felt endangered by it and whether harassment had occurred.
“The incident involving the throwing of eggs...constituted a specific act, being interference with Mr Lawton’s property by Ms Sewell, but this incident would not cause a reasonable person to fear for their safety.”
The District Court considered matters under the Harassment Act which specifies if harassment has taken place.
It decided that while Sewell’s actions placing objects on the right of way were undoubtedly annoying to Lawton, on the balance of probabilities, he was not prevented or hindered in accessing his place of residence.
Nor were the signs she put there offensive because they contained no insult.
“The egg-throwing incident was the only incident which was a qualifying specified act,” the District Court decided when viewing matters under the Harassment Act.
A restraining order was not necessary to protect him in the future as nothing had occurred for a period of nine months and there was no indication the dispute would start again.
The District Court thought if a restraining order was made, it would be likely to aggravate rather than resolve the situation between the parties.
Napier - scene of the dispute between the neighbours.
But Lawton remained so concerned, he appealed to the High Court.
In his affidavit in support of the latest action, he said Sewell, motivated by malice, reverted to ignoring his and Simpson’s rights of access.
Sewell had given an undertaking she would behave differently in the future and the District Court had relied on that.
Nor did Lawton feel the egg-throwing event was adequately addressed and he sought to take that further in the High Court.
Judge McQueen said the affidavit addressed other matters, the relevance of which was questionable, including a discussion of Lawton’s intended claim in tort for damage to his car as a result of the egg-throwing incident.
But Sewell filed an affidavit in support of her opposition to his applications to get further evidence.
Mutual expectations for use of the right of way had been on the table, but the two were unable to reach agreement about this, she said.
She disputed his description of events and said if his application was allowed, she would need to be given the opportunity to respond.
She didn’t accept vehicles had been parked in a way which prevented or hindered his access to his property, or contrary to any undertaking given by the court because - she said - she gave no such undertaking.
Judge McQueen said she accepted Sewell had made no undertakings to the District Court that her behaviour would change.
Rather, in the judge’s view, her behaviour had already changed with the parties accepting there had been a period of nine months without an issue.
She therefore dismissed Lawton’s application.
Anne Gibson has been the Herald’s property editor for 23 years, has won many awards, written books and covered property extensively here and overseas.
