Stacks Law Firm is a leading Australian legal service provider with more than 250 people operating locally in many Australian communities.
We are committed to supporting the legal needs of everyday Australians and businesses across every stage of life.
Tenant fails to keep letterbox locked at time of increase in
theft of mail
The chairperson of the strata committee and the tenant lived in
the same strata building. The tenant had recently moved into the
complex and did not always lock her letterbox.
There was an increase of mailbox theft in the area and the
chairperson was of the view that if all residents were to lock
their letterboxes, it would reduce the chance of theft of mail.
Emails sent to tenant by chairperson of strata committee
The chairperson sent an email direct to the tenant on 31
August 2016, noting that her mailbox was unlocked: "I notice
your mailbox has been left unlocked for quite a
while?"
On 10 April 2017, when media reports emerged about mail thefts
in the area, the chairperson again emailed the tenant directly
about her mailbox being open.
Mailboxes broken into and further emails sent to residents
The mailboxes of the complex were broken into on two occasions,
first in April and then in May 2017.
On each occasion the chairperson sent an email to all the
residents, including the tenant, asking them to keep their
mailboxes locked. Attached to one of those emails was an article
from the Daily Mail on the potential for fraud originating
from stolen mail.
On 24 May 2017, the chairperson sent a further email direct to
the tenant, this time copying the email to the managing real estate
agent, noting that the mailbox had again been left open for the
last few days.
The email went on to suggest that "it is probable that your
insistence in leaving the mailbox open during many months is the
likely cause [of the break ins]" and that "the Owners
Corporation may have to have all the mailboxes rekeyed".
The email concluded that if that "serious expense" had
to be incurred, then there was a "real possibility" that
the strata committee "would – and should – seek
compensation from [you]".
Tenant claims she has been menaced, threatened and
harassed
On 25 May 2017, the tenant sent an email to the chairperson
responding to his email, which she copied to most of the owners of
the units in the building (16 residents in total). As part of that
email, she pasted in the text of several emails that the
chairperson had previously sent to her and complained that she had
been "harassed" by his "many emails".
She also insinuated that perhaps the chairperson himself had
been responsible for the break ins, stating:
Did you open the front panel... ?
It has not gone unnoticed that the panel to all the mailboxes was
opened only following your months of campaigning to have all
residents comply with your demands!
The email ended with the following words.
To avoid further harassment,
I've not replied to your provoking mailbox emails. However,
your consistent attempt to shame me publicly is cowardly. It is
also offensive, harassing and menacing through the use of
technology to threaten me. Please stop.
The chairperson sued the tenant in the District Court of NSW for
defamation, seeking significant damages.
case a - The case for chairperson
case b - The case for tenant
The claim that I sent the tenant "many" emails and
copied in all the other residents of the building is not true.
I have been depicted as a malicious person who acted
menacingly, unreasonably harassing the tenant by consistently
threatening her by email. I have never menaced, harassed or
threatened the tenant by email or in any other way.
The allegation made that I was the perpetrator of the mailbox
break-ins paints me as a criminal and a thief. This is clearly
defamatory.
I was portrayed as a small-minded busybody who wasted the time
of residents on petty items concerning the running of a
building.
The emails I sent were only sent to the tenant, except two
general emails that were sent to all of the residents, whereas the
tenant sent her email to 16 different people for the purpose of
publicly humiliating me.
I have been defamed by the unrestrained phrases in the email
from the tenant, that clearly identify me and have lowered and
harmed my reputation. The court should find the tenant guilty of
defamation.
When I first took up residence in the building, I received the
standard "welcome" email which included information about
the building. There was no mention of any need to lock letterboxes
in this email.
There is no law or bylaw specifying the need to lock
letterboxes, so the chairperson had no right to ask me to keep my
letterbox locked.
The material in my email was substantially true, considering
the repeated emails of the chairperson, that were sent solely to
shame and humiliate me.
The email I sent was an expression of honest opinion as opposed
to a statement of fact.
The subject matter of unlocked mailboxes is a trivial matter
and the tone of my email is light-hearted and jocular. It was only
sent to a limited number of people who had already formed their
view on the matter and therefore was unlikely to cause harm to the
chairperson.
I had a social and moral duty to alert the other residents of
the apartment block to the behaviour of the chairperson and the
court should find that I am not guilty of defamation.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.