Sarris v Matcham - [2025] SASC 96

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
SARRIS & ANOR v MATCHAM & ORS
[2025] SASC 96
Decision of the Honourable Associate Justice Bochner
REAL PROPERTY - BOUNDARIES OF LAND AND FENCING
PROCEDURE - STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS: JURISDICTION, POWERS AND GENERALLY - INHERENT AND GENERAL STATUTORY POWERS - TO PREVENT ABUSE OF PROCESS - ATTEMPTS TO RELITIGATE

SARRIS & ANOR v MATCHAM & ORS
[2025] SASC 96

This action concerns a narrow strip of land located between two properties in North Adelaide. Before I can consider the applications before me, it is necessary to review the history of ownership of the two properties and the previous dealings between the registered proprietors of those properties.
The history of the strip of land
The applicants and the third respondent are the registered proprietors of a property at 8 Sussex Street, North Adelaide. This property has been in their family since 1959. It has been rented out for many years. The third respondent has not taken part in this action. I will refer to the applicants as the Sarris parties and to their property as 8 Sussex.
The respondents are the registered proprietors of a property at 29 East Pallant Street, North Adelaide. I will refer to them as the Matcham/Matthews parties and to their property as 29 East Pallant.
8 Sussex runs in a north-south direction and 29 East Pallant is on its eastern side. 29 East Pallant runs in an east-west direction, and 8 Sussex lies along its western boundary. Between 29 East Pallant and 8 Sussex is the strip of land. The strip of land runs the full width of 29 East Pallant and at its longest, it is less than one metre. It was, until 2022, part of the land known as 25 East Pallant Street, which property is owned by Mr Ramsay and Ms Lennon. I will refer to them as the Ramsay/Lennon parties and to their property as 25 East Pallant. While the land was part of 25 East Pallant Street, it was not accessible from that property, nor could it be seen from there. It was not used in any way by the Ramsay/Lennon parties. Nonetheless, 8 Sussex shared a boundary with 25 East Pallant, not with 29 East Pallant, with the strip of land effectively acting as a buffer between 29 East Pallant and 8 Sussex.
In 2022, the Matcham/Matthews parties and the Ramsay/Lennon parties undertook a boundary realignment, as a result of which the strip of land became part of 29 East Pallant. This arose out of the desire of the Matcham/Matthews parties to utilise the strip of land.
It appears that for some significant period of time (and, on the Sarris parties’ case, since at least the 1960’s), the boundary fence between 8 Sussex and 25 East Pallant was placed beyond the eastern edge of the strip, that is, within the land that was part of 29 East Pallant. In effect, the strip of land was incorporated into 8 Sussex, in addition to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Sarris v Matcham

Details

AGLC: Sarris v Matcham [2025] SASC 96
Case: [2025] SASC 96
Decision Date: 10 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Sarris v Matcham, the dispute centred around the boundaries of land and the construction of a fence. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff, Sarris, sought to have the defendant, Matcham, remove a fence erected on what Sarris claimed was his property. Sarris further sought an injunction to prevent Matcham from continuing to occupy the disputed land.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were the determination of the correct boundary between the two properties and whether the defendant had the right to construct a fence on the disputed land. The court was also required to consider if there were any grounds to prevent the relitigation of issues that had already been determined in a previous proceeding between the parties.

The court examined the evidence provided by both parties, including surveys and expert opinions, to determine the location of the true boundary. It was found that the fence had been erected on Sarris's land. The court also noted that the issues in the current proceeding had previously been the subject of litigation between the same parties, which had resulted in a judgment that established the boundary line. Given the previous determination, the court held that the defendant was attempting to relitigate settled issues and therefore exercised its inherent jurisdiction to prevent an abuse of process. The court dismissed the defendant's appeal and ordered the removal of the fence within a specified timeframe.

Orders