A bitter dispute over who has the right to use a shared terrace between two neighbors in one of Sydney’s most exclusive suburbs has escalated to the NSW Supreme Court.
Marie Barter sued her neighbors Joshua Theunissen and his wife Michelle over an ‘unfortunate’ dispute over who has the right to use a 78 square meter terrace located between their two adjacent properties in Mosman.
The two properties, each estimated to be worth more than $3 million, are next to each other on the same plot of land after being split into two parcels more than 30 years ago.
Mrs. Barter accesses the roof through a skylight and a stepladder in her “hatchet block,” while the Theunissen’s access it through sliding glass doors at the back of their home.
Marie Barter (pictured above) sued her neighbors Joshua Theunissen and his wife Michelle over an ‘unfortunate’ dispute over who has the right to use a large 78 square meter terrace located between their two adjacent properties in Mosman, on the lower coast of Sydney. north coast
The court heard that at one point Mr Theunissen and his wife (pictured) called the police, claiming that Ms Barter and her partner were ‘unlawfully trespassing on the roof terrace’.
The court heard that Mr Theunissen and his wife once called the police, claiming that Mrs Barter and her partner were ‘unlawfully trespassing on the roof terrace’.
They also alleged that Ms Barter’s partner had assaulted Ms Theunissen.
In response, both parties installed CCTV cameras on the roof terrace to ‘monitor’ each other’s activities.
Ms. Barter’s legal action, first reported by news.com.autried to draw up a ‘statement’ that the Theunissen do not have the exclusive right to use the terrace.
The advisor objected to the fact that Theunissen had placed a mesh over her skylight to prevent her from entering the roof.
“Ms. Barter also objects to the Theunissens placing several items on the roof, including a basketball hoop, an octagonal table for eight people, two decorative blue ceramic vases, other potted plants and two gas heaters,” Judge Mark Richmond wrote in his ruling.
She also objected to the fact that Theunissen’s son played basketball on the roof deck, which “causes loud, repetitive banging noises that Mrs. Barter hears throughout her home” and that the couple “often played loud music from the roof.”
The Theunissen argued that they were entitled to exclusive use of the roof terrace and that Mrs. Barter’s skylight was only added later.
“They argue that if the roof were shared it would impermissibly infringe upon their own right to use and enjoy the terrace for recreational purposes,” Judge Richmond noted.
However, Judge Richmond ultimately ruled that the roof terrace was a shared space, suggesting it was possible that the feuding neighbors could both enjoy a ‘drink on a summer’s evening’.
The two properties, each estimated to be worth more than $3 million, are next to each other on the same plot of land after being split into two parcels more than 30 years ago (pictured)
The roof terrace, 78 square meters in size, can be seen on the right of the aerial photo above
“There is no reason in principle why each of them should not be able to use the roof area for that purpose as it is of sufficient size to enable them to enjoy it without unreasonably interfering with the other’s use,” Judge Richmond noted.
However, he ruled that both neighbors’ CCTV cameras constituted a ‘nuisance’.
Daily Mail Australia has contacted both parties for comment.
The legal costs between them will be decided at a later date.