Marc Ellis and Briar Ross have been battling over a driveway.
Marc Ellis and Briar Ross have been battling over a driveway.
A woman accused of intentionally damaging ex-All Black Marc Ellis's driveway says he needs to take responsibility for his "arrogant attitude".
Briar Susanne Ross, 67, accepts that in May 2015 she instructed a digger to rip up a wall and dump debris onto Mr Ellis's land.
Judge Simon Maude said the issue was whether she had the right to do so and whether there was actual damage to the ex-rugby star's property.
Ross, who gave evidence at Auckland District Court this afternoon, said the former rugby star turned TV personality refused to engage with her over the bitter dispute regarding his Waiheke driveway.
"If he'd had the courtesy to talk to me . . . and go through the due process we might not be here today," she said.
"I feel he must take responsibility for his arrogant attitude."
Briar Ross stands with the disputed driveway on her property on Waiheke Island in June last year. Photo / Jason Oxenham
Police prosecutor Fiona Culliney said the stoush came about over a small area of jointly-owned land on which Mr Ellis planned to have a driveway and had constructed a retaining wall.
"Mr Ellis, through his documentation with council and other land owners, considered he had authority to build on that land; and Ms Ross considered he did not," she said.
"For the purposes of this case it's not relevant to any great degree who was entitled to do what on that land."
Ms Culliney said the case was about the charge of intentional damage against the defendant.
"Ms Ross obtained the services of a digger . . . he came along to the property and on the instructions of her, dug up a previously-constructed wall, and rocks and soil and so forth," she said.
"Rubble and soil and rocks were placed by the digger on Mr Ellis's private land."
But Ross claimed there had been no damage to the land.
She pointed to a photo she had taken immediately after the job had been completed, which she said showed an absence of any holes on her neighbour's land.
The police photos of the scene were taken five days afterwards, Ross said.
"I believe that any damage could've been done by anybody during that time. It certainly wasn't done by me or anybody working for me," she said.
"I believed I had the right to remove a construction he put there in breach of [a joint land-owners' agreement]."
Ross said she had no choice but to dump the spoil on Mr Ellis's land because otherwise she may have been accused of theft.
Ms Culliney told Judge Maude there were three types of damage: dumping the pile of debris, the damage to land below it and encroaching on Mr Ellis's private driveway.
Mr Ellis, who was called as the first witness this morning, was taken aback when he saw a photo of the alleged damage taken at the time.
"It's worse than I remember," he said.
He confirmed he was one of five trustees who owned the address in question on Alan Murray Lane.
They had planning permission to build a house and a driveway, which was put in so work vehicles had access to the site, he said.
Judge Maude will give his decision on Thursday afternoon.
