Fence Dispute Letter: Abdul Al-Naser vs. Pavlovich and Rizo

This legal letter, drafted on behalf of Mr. Abdul Al-Naser, responds to a claim made by his neighbors, Marisa Pavlovich and Jure Rizo, concerning a fence dispute and excavation work. The letter references the Common Boundaries Act 1981 and argues that the initial actions of the neighbors were not compliant with the act. It addresses the collapse of the fence, the allocation of repair costs, and the potential compensation for damages caused by excavation. The letter proposes a resolution through either reasonable compensation or mediation, emphasizing the importance of resolving the dispute before escalating to the Australian Capital Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT). It also provides information on the option of mediation and the potential for legal advice, and requests a prompt reply to resolve the dispute. The letter serves as a notice to discourse the concern and also asks for a reply. The document is written in response to the client's neighbour's claim for damages and the need for a resolution before approaching the ACAT.

Running head: DRAFTING
Date: 7 March 2020
From
Name of advocate
On behalf of Mr Abdul Al Naser
To
Name of advocate
On behalf of Marisa Pavlovich and Mr Rizo
Re: in reference to intimidation of claim
Dear Sir,
The letter is written on 7 March 2020 in response to your letter relating to fence disputes
that are alleged by your client against my client. The complaint made by your client comes under
the scope of the Common Boundary Act, 1981 and the act that is complained of is not
sustainable.
In reply to your letter, it is said that alignment of boundary wall in between the land has
not happened due to the mistake on the part of your client and also the fence is not constructed
within the surveyed land which is made not in compliance to said act. The fence that is
constructed collapse but the cost of repairmen should be distributed evenly among the parties as
the initial act of your client is not tenable in law. As a consequence of this, the wall collapse and
thus repairing cost should be bear by both.

1DRAFTING
1. If the excavation that is organized by my client cause damage then the compensation that
is payable should be fair and reasonable. The amount claimed by the defendant due to the
harm incurred is assessed at the rate of $15 per year.
The letter is written on behalf of my client in [pursuance to the dispute of
common boundary that is disarrangement relating to fence in between the adjoining
property. The fence dispute was over the matte that involves cost, repair of the fence. The
law that is applicable in relation to fence dispute is Common Boundaries Act, 1981. Thus
we are writing this letter to resolve the dispute before its approach to ACAT1. If the
agreement has arrived on this matter, then date and sign the arrangement and also retain
the copy of same. If no arrangement has arrived with respect to fence dispute among us,
then attempt to determine the issue that involves exactly in the possible settlement and
dispute. Thus prior to arriving at ACAT, this letter will serve as notice to discourse the
concern and also ask for a reply. Thus there is a requirement to send notice prior to one
month before application is made to ACAT in case of replacing or repairing existing
boundary and construction of new boundary. Thus if specific data is required about the
implication of law and the options to settle the fence dispute, then legal advice can be
available from the legal centre of the local community2. We can also opt the option of
mediation as the same is considered as another effective method to resolve the dispute
1 Doskow, Emily, and Lina Guillen. Neighbor Law: Fences, Trees, Boundaries & Noise. (Nolo,
2017)
2 Landrum, Brittany, and Gilbert Garza. "Mending fences: Defining the domains and approaches
of quantitative and qualitative research." (2015) Qualitative psychology 2.2: 199.

2DRAFTING
between the parties without the necessity of approaching to court. The centres of dispute
resolution rest in Hervey Bay, Brisbane, Mackay, Rockhampton, Cairs and Townsville
that have provided training to the mediators who conduct as an impartial third party3. The
mediation is regarded as easier, cheaper and speedy, and in several situations, the
procedure is served free of cost. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal make
the decision regarding conflict over common boundary disputes. The decision of QCAT
is statutory binding in addition to that can be enforceable by the court. Nevertheless,
settlement of the conflict through the tribunal is regarded as cheaper in comparison to
filing case in the tribunal. The QCAT also assist in arriving in an arrangement through
the procedure of mediation and in case the hearing on tribunal is required, there is no
requirement of the lawyer for representing you. So the best method that suggested to
evade legal conflict with the neighbor is to aware of responsibilities and rights relating to
the boundary on land. So we are interested in resolving the dispute by the adoption of any
method of resolution that is either by payment of reasonable compensation or
approaching to mediation for settling the same. Your early reply is expected in this regard
Thus our client agrees to make payment in the form of damages, but the same
should be fair. Please intimate us about your further action in this regard
Yours sincerely,
3 Avdan, Nazli, and Christopher F. Gelpi. "Do Good Fences Make Good Neighbors? Border
Barriers and the Transnational Flow of Terrorist Violence." (2017) International Studies
Quarterly 61.1 14-27.

3DRAFTING
Associate

4DRAFTING
Bibliography
Avdan, Nazli, and Christopher F. Gelpi. "Do Good Fences Make Good Neighbors? Border
Barriers and the Transnational Flow of Terrorist Violence." (2017) International Studies
Quarterly 61.1 14-27.
Doskow, Emily, and Lina Guillen. Neighbor Law: Fences, Trees, Boundaries & Noise. (Nolo,
2017)
Landrum, Brittany, and Gilbert Garza. "Mending fences: Defining the domains and approaches
of quantitative and qualitative research." (2015) Qualitative psychology 2.2: 199.