EXCLUSIVE
An elite Sydney financier has been lambasted as ‘foolish’ and ‘reckless’ after arguing he should be given ‘squatter’s rights’ over a million-dollar parcel of prime church-owned land in one of the nation’s most exclusive suburbs.
Stephen Desmond Crowe has been locked in a fierce legal row with the Uniting Church after it asked him to stop using its property – in the heart of the city’s ritzy eastern suburbs – as his private ‘playground’ five years ago.
The business mogul has gone as far as building an outdoor deck and several home extensions on the vacant site since moving in next door in 2003.
He claimed a historic backyard deal struck between n television legend Bruce Gyngell and the plot’s previous owner more than six decades ago entitled him to treat the contentious tract of land as his own.
The Uniting Church insisted the block was theirs and demanded Mr Crowe rip up his deck, along with two outdoor staircases linking various levels of his multimillion-dollar, multi-storey home, and a new balcony he built jutting out over the site.
The long-running dispute over the property, located on Edward St in a highly sought-after tree-lined pocket of Woollahra, eventually ended in the NSW Supreme Court.
The court heard the late Bruce Gyngell originally bought an undeveloped plot next door to the site – at 33 Edward St – in 1961, before commissioning famed Sydney architect Bill Lucas to construct a state-of-the-art home on the property.
The powerful media executive was the first person to appear on the small screen in , famously ushering in a new age of entertainment in September 1956 with the words: ‘Good evening, and welcome to television.’
He later went on to host the country’s first television quiz show before taking charge of the Nine Network as managing director.
Conscious of his growing young family, the tycoon approached the owner of the neighbouring block, Agnes May Turkington, and asked if he could lease it on a month-by-month basis as ‘a playground for his children’.
They reached an agreement in January 1963 that would allow Mr Gyngell to build a swing for his kids and maintain a ‘side garden’ on the site.
In exchange, he agreed to pay Ms Turkington the nominal sum of ‘one shilling per annum, if demanded’.
Mr Gyngell’s family home became a landmark property and went on to grace the cover of n Home Beautiful magazine in December 1966, not long after the birth of his son David, who would also go on to run the Nine Network decades later.
The media boss eventually sold the house in 1970 and upgraded to a bigger property after jumping ship to rival network Seven.
Ms Turkington transferred her plot at 35 Edward St to The Uniting Church in Property Trust four years later, in 1974, along with six adjoining lots on View St, Woollahra.
The church built a retirement home on the View St site but the Edward St block – which runs along a clifftop and was more difficult to develop – remained vacant and continued to be used as an unofficial garden by the new owners at number 33.
By the time Mr Crowe snapped up Mr Gyngell’s former home for $1.28million in 2003, he told the court the use of the neighbouring block had become so entrenched he thought it was actually part of his property.
He claimed this misconception was further bolstered by an auction flyer distributed by agents Di Jones Real Estate that boasted the property included an ‘informal living area with patio overlooking the side tropical garden’.
‘I would not have purchased the property at 33 Edward Street at all if I had been aware there was no legal right for me to use the side garden,’ he told the court.
Mr Crowe argued that given his home’s long-standing custodianship of the church-owned land – and costs associated with its upkeep – it should be permanently transferred to him under NSW’s ‘adverse possession’ provision.
The law – often referred to as ‘squatter’s rights’ – allows someone to claim ownership of a property title after having unrestricted control of it for at least 12 years.
Failing that, Mr Crowe claimed he should be granted an easement over the site.
‘If I knew the side garden was not part of my property or if I knew I did not have any right to use the side garden, I would not have incurred the time and cost since my purchase of the property to maintain the side garden,’ he told the court.
The Church Trust argued Mr Crowe had long been well-aware he did not own the land, and had even actively engaged in discussions to formally buy it from the church in 2009.
By that time, the vacant lot was valued at more than $1million.
When those negotiations ‘petered out’, the court heard Mr Crowe went ahead and built a number of extensions on the site anyway – with neither the approval of the Church Trust nor the local council.
The Church Trust later contacted Mr Crowe, in July 2019, to say it had ‘identified three encroachments including a timber deck, a timber balcony and metal roofing into the Church’s property’ and asked him for ‘a timetable for their removal’.
Mr Crowe never replied but told the court it was only because he did not receive the letter.
He argued that removing the so-called ‘encroachments’ and losing control of the garden would wipe $500,000 from the value of his home.
In handling down his decision, Supreme Court Justice Guy Parker said he found it difficult to comprehend why Mr Crowe ever thought he was entitled to occupy the site.
He said the lease Mr Gyngell negotiated ‘was never registered (and) on the face of it, Mr Gyngell’s successors in title, including, now, Mr Crowe, have never had any legal entitlement to occupy or use the side yard’.
‘Any lawyer would have appreciated that an unregistered lease would not have been, or at least would have been highly unlikely to be, enforceable more than 40 years after Mr Gyngell had sold number 33 and almost 40 years after the Church Trust had acquired number 35,’ Justice Parker said.
He added he was further baffled by Mr Crowe’s decision to build extensions and a deck on the church’s land with no approvals.
‘Although the construction of works on land which Mr Crowe did not own was reckless, Mr Crowe has shown himself to be similarly reckless in failing to obtain approval from the council,’ Justice Parker said.
‘Why he acted so foolishly is a matter for speculation.’
Justice Parker went on to castigate Mr Crowe as ‘an unimpressive witness’, noting much of his evidence was ‘quite unbelievable’ and that he had ‘completely changed his story’ on a number of critical points during the legal tussle.
‘I have treated Mr Crowe’s evidence with extreme caution,’ he said.
‘I was left with the impression that he was more interested in telling me what he thought would support his case rather than providing a candid account according to what, if anything, he could actually remember.
‘He first claimed that he undertook the works in the side yard believing himself to be the owner.
‘His second story was that he undertook the works believing that he was entitled to do so as lessee.
‘His attempt … to reinterpret and salvage that account was extraordinarily strained and unconvincing.
‘I do not accept Mr Crowe’s evidence that he was unaware at the time he purchased number 33 that it did not include the side yard.
‘It is not credible that anyone, let alone a person of Mr Crowe’s experience and education, would spend over $1 million on a property without an understanding of what they were actually buying.
‘It is also highly unlikely that Mr Crowe could have got the idea that the side yard was part of number 33 when it had been quite clear to previous owners that this was not so.’
He added his views were further reinforced by Mr Crowe’s documented enquiries about officially purchasing the land in 2009.
‘Why would he contemplate spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on buying the side yard if he believed he already had a lease over it?’ he said.
Justice Parker said he found Mr Crowe was ‘liable in trespass for the continued intrusion of the roof overhang and of the balcony into the airspace of number 35’ and ordered him to removed them, along with the deck he had built.
He gave Mr Crowe and the Church Trust time to discuss how and when the structures would be removed before he handed down his final orders on Friday.
‘There was no evidence before me of the precise cost of removing the structures, but it was common ground that the cost would be significant, and would run at least into the tens of thousands of dollars,’ he said.
Mr Crowe was still making the most of the vacant church land next door to his prized Edward St property when Daily Mail visited him at his home on Tuesday.
The high-flying financier, who already has work underway on his latest renovation project, said he was disappointed the court had found in favour of the church.
However, he said he would have to take some time out to consider his options before deciding whether he would challenge the ruling.