Divorce Complicates Prosecution For Planning Enforcement Notice

By Alric Lindsay

The case of Tidyl Fellner & Vernoa Fellner was addressed in the Summary Court on October 14, 2025, whereby they were jointly charged with failing to comply with a planning enforcement notice. However, the case was complicated by their divorce, with one party claiming they had not lived at the property since 2016. Making matters worse, the enforcement notice was not served on the parties until January 2025.

Clarifying the series of events, it was indicated to Magistrate Gunn that the parties were married; however, one spouse was to receive the property as part of the divorce proceedings.  

Although the parties did not have a copy of the divorce order in court to support their claims, Magistrate Gunn read out a copy she had.

Magistrate Gunn shared:

It does actually confirm that the petitioner shall transfer the interests in the matrimonial home to the respondent.

Concerning this, it is unclear why the DPP Crown Counsel did not have a copy of this critical evidence before prosecuting the parties.  The possession of proper evidence could have prevented at least one of the parties from having to attend court.

The next step is for DPP Crown Counsel to review the evidence and consider how to further proceed with the matter.

In the meantime, the parties were bound over to return to court on November 11, 2025.

Note to readers

Based on previous court cases, the court expects landowners to update the address and names of owners after land transfers, sales, or, in this case, following divorce proceedings. If the land register is not updated, then the authorities will serve enforcement notices by registered mail on the persons listed in the register.

Unfortunately, many people who appear in court were not aware that enforcement notices were being sent by registered mail or assumed that another party had updated the land register.

Perhaps, to prevent certain parties from unnecessarily attending court and wasting both their time and the court’s, the authorities should investigate matters more thoroughly or use a combination of efforts to reach parties, including modern methods like email.

Regarding the evidence in this case, Magistrate Gunn noted that the court was not pleased that the DPP did not have the proper files in court setting out the allegations. Similar statements have been made by other magistrates; however, the DPP is never held accountable for this and never penalised.

Share on Facebook

Post on X