The letter was sent on behalf of M Salazar Properties, a property development company controlled by accountant and real estate agent Maricris (or Monica) Salazar. Her “life partner” and former solicitor, John Merlo, often acted through the company for this litigation.

In what Justice Hindman deemed to be “extraordinary”, the letter was addressed to managing partner Juan Martinez, who has since died.

In one of the “lowlights” of the letter, the company wrote: “I would invite you to consider whether the Supreme Court would find it embarrasses the profession that a lay person needed to tell [two lawyers] the law?”

The dispute began after M Salazar purchased a residential block of land in Bellbird Park, located approximately 29 kilometres south of Brisbane, with a plan to develop it into four subdivision lots.

Shortly after purchasing, Salazar and Merlo approached one of their neighbours with an offer to buy part or whole of his land.

When this was rejected, M Salazar entered discussions with the neighbour about a possible barter agreement whereby the neighbour would allow stormwater to flow through his property.

There was a disagreement between Merlo and the neighbour as to whether an enforceable agreement was reached. While legal proceedings were threatened, they were never initiated.

VIEW ALL

Justice Hindman said this was only relevant to mention because the company’s conduct, through Merlo, had “unsurprisingly” made the neighbour cautious about the development plans.

Six total offers were made to the neighbour, and while the Supreme Court only dealt with the last, Justice Hindman said the correspondence and conduct demonstrated “an entitled and bullying attitude by both the applicant and its representatives”.

When one of the offers was made, the company sent a letter to the man that suggested he had been given “bad advice” by his lawyers and was paying them “expensive money for a losing outcome”.

The letter went on to say the neighbour “wasted enough of my time and money” and told him not to have his lawyers respond with anything but acceptance because it would “not enter into any further correspondence about this matter”.

Salazar was found to be an “unimpressive witness” who was evasive, argumentative, unduly critical and dismissive of the neighbour.

Allegations Salazar made against the neighbour were rejected, including a claim the man was “unwilling to consider any offer”, had a closed mind, was unreasonable, and “a bit strange”.

“The respondent acted entirely understandably and appropriately in the context of the way he and his solicitor were being dealt with by the applicant and Salazar,” Justice Hindman said.

A costs order was eventually made against the company and Salazar.

While Merlo was a director of the company for a time and had played an active role in the litigation, Justice Hindman did not consider his overall conduct should be viewed “in the context of informally performing the role of a solicitor, acting on instructions”.

“His conduct, although concerning at times, did not rise to the level where if he had been a solicitor acting that a non-party costs order would have been made against him,” Justice Hindman said.