After staving off a $320,000 legal bill for the past two years, 'neighbourhood vigilante activist' Eedra Zey has lost her Supreme Court appeal and told the debt is due.
And there may be more to come, depending on the outcome of a costs order being determined in the coming weeks.
It all began in September of 2019 during building works at Belmont High School. Ms Zey, 65, who lived in a nearby street, and others in her neighbourhood were concerned about the movement of trucks.
Ms Zey engaged in what the primary judge, Acting District Court Judge Leonard Levy SC, described in his principal judgement on July 19, 2024, as "provocative passive aggressive activism", or "neighbourhood vigilantism by civil protest".
Ms Zey had parked her car in front of a gateway and school access point at the Lake Macquarie school on September 17, 2019, which was brought to the attention of police.
Specifically, her car was left parked across and blocking a gateway and school access point for ongoing building works at the northern end of a cul-de-sac in Albert Street.
Later that day, police arranged to have the car towed.
A few days later, on September 21, police received a new complaint about Ms Zey's car once again blocking the driveway access to Belmont High School.
Two police officers turned up at her doorstep only to ask her to move her car. Technically, it has been conceded, there was trespass to her property, during the 'brief time' it took the two police officers to leave - the walk from the front door to her gate.
They were, however, acting "in the public interest and in accordance with their public duties".
Ms Zey commenced proceedings in the District Court in 2022, claiming damages for trespass to goods relating to the towing of her car on September 17 and 21, and for trespass to land relating to the police entering her property on the 21st.
By an amended statement of claim filed on August 13, 2023, Ms Zey alleged trespass against the NSW Police Force, including two claims of trespass to her goods and claims of trespass to her land, trespass to her person in the form of non-battery assault, false imprisonment, misfeasance in public office, breach of privacy and breach of Art 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
She sought compensatory, aggravated and exemplary damages over claims that police trespassed on her land.
The State denied all aspects of Ms Zey's claim, except for a short period of trespass to her property on September 21.
The State conceded that, when Ms Zey asked the police officers to leave her premises, that demand terminated any implied licence those police officers had for entering her property, which lasted for about three to three and a half minutes, which the judge described as "triflingly short".
Initially she was offered what Judge Levy later described as "on any reasonable view, generous compensation'' of $5000, which she refused. She also refused a series of subsequent offers of $25,000 and then $30,000.
The legal proceedings which followed included 11 listing days, which, together with other associated costs, generated 17 invoices for the defendant, the State of NSW, totalling $344,132.
In the end, a judgement was entered in favour of Ms Zey, given the brief, technical 'trespass', but she was awarded the nominal amount of $1, not the $350,000 she was seeking.
In October, 2025, Ms Zey filed an application for leave to appeal, and obtained a stay of the costs order from the primary judge in November.
After a series of no-shows at court proceedings listed to deal with the appeal, during which Ms Zey put to the court that she was unable to travel to Sydney to attend court due to the risk of deteriorating her mental health, the appeal was dealt with on the basis of written submissions.
In a judgement handed down on Wednesday (July 15, 2026) the Supreme Court of Appeal allowed an extension on time for the filing of summons seeking leave to appeal, but then refused leave to appeal.
The State of NSW has 14 days to make written submissions and/or offer evidence in support of a gross sum costs order, and Ms Zey has 28 days to file in response.
