Who Is Responsible for a Boundary Fence?

Boundary fences are one of the most common sources of disputes between neighbours in New Zealand. Almost every week someone asks a variation of the same question:

My neighbour wants a new fence — do I have to pay? The old fence fell down — whose responsibility is it? The neighbour removed the fence without asking — what now?

The answers are not always obvious. While the rules seem simple on paper, real-life situations can quickly become complicated. To understand how responsibility actually works, we need to start with the law that governs boundary fencing in New Zealand — the Fencing Act 1978.

Under the Fencing Act, adjoining property owners generally share the cost of a boundary fence equally. This applies when:

• a fence does not exist and one neighbour wants to build one

• an old fence needs replacing

• a fence has deteriorated and is no longer reasonable

In most situations, the cost of building or replacing a standard adequate boundary fence must be split equally between neighbours. The principle is set out clearly in section 9 of the Fencing Act 1978, which states:

“Subject to the provisions of this Act, and to any order of the court made under this Act, the occupiers of adjoining lands not divided by an adequate fence are liable to contribute in equal proportions to work on a fence.”

But there is an important condition. The process of building or replacing a boundary fence does not begin with a hammer or a contractor — it begins with a document known as a Fencing Notice. The legal requirement to issue such a notice is set out in section 10 of the Act, which provides that:

“Any occupier who desires to compel any other occupier under this Act to contribute to the cost of work on a fence shall serve on him a notice in form 1 of Schedule 1 or to the like effect.”

The contents of the notice itself are described in Schedule 1, which outlines the standard form and information that must be included.

A neighbour who wishes to build or replace a fence must therefore first formally notify the adjoining property owner of their intention to do so. This notice sets out the key details of the proposal: the type of fence proposed, where it will be located along the boundary, the estimated cost of the work, and the share of that cost that the neighbouring owner is expected to contribute.

Once the notice has been served, the adjoining owner is given time to consider the proposal. The law provides a 21-day period during which they may raise objections or propose alternatives. If no objection is made within that timeframe, the proposal is effectively treated as accepted. In that situation, section 14 of the Fencing Act allows the person who issued the notice to proceed with the work. The Act provides that:

“Where a person serves notice under this Act in respect of work on a fence, he may proceed to do the work— (a) after the expiration of 21 days from the date of the service of the notice if he is not duly served with a cross-notice within that period; or (b) if before the expiration of the said period of 21 days he is duly served with such a cross-notice, as soon as all differences between the parties are resolved either by agreement or by the court.”

Once the work is completed, the adjoining neighbour becomes liable to contribute their share of the cost as specified in the notice.

While this process may seem bureaucratic for something as ordinary as a boundary fence, it exists for a simple reason: it prevents disputes before they start. By ensuring that both neighbours are informed and have an opportunity to respond before work begins, the Fencing Act aims to turn what could easily become a conflict into a structured and transparent process. Now let me tell you about a real example where things did not follow this process.

A few years ago, a dispute between two neighbouring properties ended up in the Disputes Tribunal after a boundary fence suddenly disappeared during construction works on one of the sites. What followed was a long argument about who was responsible for replacing the fence, whether it had fallen on its own, and whether the neighbouring owner should contribute to the cost of a new one.

At first glance, the situation seemed like a typical fencing dispute — the kind where the Fencing Act would normally require both neighbours to share the cost of rebuilding the fence. But once the details were examined, the situation turned out to be very different.

The property, whose owner caused disappearance of the fence, was undergoing a redevelopment project. Another property's owners, who suddenly found their backyard exposed to the construction site and a newly formed driveway, reached out to Concepts and Consents for advice after attempts to resolve the matter directly with the developer had failed.

When we started looking into the situation, it quickly became clear that the issue was not simply about the age or condition of the fence, as was being suggested. The key questions were much more fundamental: how exactly the fence had been removed, whether proper notice had been given, and whether the removal was connected to the development works taking place on the adjoining property.

Photographs and witness statements suggested that the fence had not simply collapsed due to age or weather. Instead, it appeared to have been dismantled during construction works on the neighbouring site, with fence posts pulled out of the ground and the fence panels removed.

At the same time, the development next door to Concepts & Consent's client had created a completely new situation for the adjoining property. A driveway serving several new homes was now running directly along the boundary where the fence had previously stood, leaving the neighbouring backyard open and exposed.

What initially appeared to be a straightforward disagreement about replacing an old fence was gradually turning into something else entirely — a dispute about whether the fence had been removed as part of the development works, and who was legally responsible for reinstating it.

With the parties unable to reach an agreement, the matter eventually proceeded to the Disputes Tribunal. When the dispute reached the Tribunal, the central question was not simply whether the fence had been old or whether a new fence would benefit both properties.

The Tribunal instead focused on something far more important under the law: how the fence had been removed and whether the correct legal process had been followed.

As it was discussed above, under the Fencing Act, neighbours are normally required to share the cost of building or replacing a boundary fence. However, this principle only applies when the proper procedure has been followed — including the service of a fencing notice before any work is undertaken.

In this case, no fencing notice had ever been served to the neighbouring owner before the fence was removed. Evidence presented during the hearing showed that the fence had been dismantled during construction activities taking place on the adjoining property, rather than collapsing naturally due to age or deterioration. Photographs taken at the time showed fence posts removed from the ground and fence panels stacked on the construction site.

The Tribunal considered these circumstances. While the age of the fence and the condition of its posts were debated by the parties, the key issue remained that the fence had been removed without the neighbouring owner's agreement and without the statutory process required by the Fencing Act.

Because of this, the Tribunal concluded that the normal cost-sharing rules did not apply.

Instead, the responsibility fell on the party who had removed the fence to reinstate it. In other words, the neighbour who had taken down the fence was required to rebuild the boundary fence themselves, rather than asking the adjoining property owner to contribute to the cost. This case is a good example of how understanding the law can completely change the outcome of what initially appears to be a simple neighbour dispute. Boundary fencing issues often seem straightforward, but once construction works, property development, and legal procedures are involved, the situation can quickly become complex. By carefully analysing the applicable legislation, the evidence, and the sequence of events, Concepts and Consents was able to help clarify the legal position and support the client through the dispute process, ultimately leading to a fair outcome.