Lines crossed in Telecom's long Barrier fight

By TONY STICKLEY

Six years after a High Court judge ruled that Telecom was trespassing on Robyn Storey's land, the telecommunications giant is still there.

Now the 49-year-old former Great Barrier Island poultry farmer says she has had enough and has gone back to court to get the company off her property once and for all.

In addition, she is seeking as yet undetermined damages for trespass and for malicious prosecution.

Ms Storey says that the battle with Telecom, which ended up involving her neighbours, has taken its toll.

The ill-feeling and bitterness caused her to quit the island and set up home in Auckland, leaving the 4ha property near Tryphena overgrown and on the market.

Ms Storey's troubles started when she cut a cable through her land which Telecom, without any easement, was using to service other land-locked properties.

She was found guilty of wilful damage and ordered to pay $500 reparation in the district court.

But her conviction was quashed by Justice David Baragwanath in the High Court at Auckland in 1996.

He said that Telecom ran a cable along or across her right-of-way without statutory or other authority.

It was, the judge said, a trespass on Ms Storey's land.

Although the police and the Crown acted in good faith, the judge said, it was unclear why Telecom's "obvious knowledge of its lack of legal right did not pass across to the prosecution".

Ms Storey said yesterday that despite the judge's words, Telecom had still not moved the cable.

"By normal standards a trespasser is supposed to move off.

"Because it was Telecom, everyone believed they were in the right. I have been blatantly ignored and now I am suing them."

Ms Storey said that as early as 1997 she had been willing to grant an easement but talks to resolve the dispute went nowhere.

In April last year she filed her statement of claim, demanding the cable be removed and seeking damages for trespass and malicious prosecution.

"My life has been ruined by this," Ms Storey said.

"I have been forced to leave Barrier and the stress has been intolerable to my daughter, Loretta, and myself."

Ms Storey said that in September last year, High Court Master Anne Gambrill ordered Telecom to take the cable out.

Despite Justice Baragwanath's ruling six years ago that it was a case of trespass, Telecom says in its statement of defence that it is not trespassing on Ms Storey's land.

Telecom says that at the time of laying the cable in May 1995 it understood that it had the licence and/or consent of all the registered proprietors of the right-of-way, including Ms Storey.

It also denies that it is continuing to trespass on Ms Storey's part of the right-of- way.

Telecom adds that it has sought to meet the plaintiff to reach a resolution, a claim Ms Storey denies.

In relation to the malicious prosecution allegation, Telecom denies that it failed to lay all relevant facts fully and fairly before the police, as alleged by Ms Storey.

Both sides are due back in court in November but are supposed to be holding talks in the meantime.

Telecom's new lawyer, Murray Gilbert, of Chapman Tripp Sheffield Young, said yesterday that Telecom wanted to resolve the dispute in a fair and appropriate manner.

He understood Telecom was making arrangements to remove the cable from Ms Storey's land before the next court hearing.

His instructions were that Telecom previously offered to remove the cable but permission was refused. Ms Storey disputes this.

Mr Gilbert said that this was not a case of a large company "trampling" on an individual.

"It is a case of a company believing it was doing the right thing, believing it had the consent of the relevant owners.

"It was looking only to provide service to some very remote people for which the actual cost of providing the service is quite high compared to the revenue Telecom is going to receive out of it."

There could be no suggestion of Telecom disregarding people's land rights by putting in a cable just to get revenue.

Mr Gilbert said that Ms Storey was supposed to have filed a new statement of claim, including details of losses she claimed she had suffered, but had so far failed to do so.