Man takes advertiser to court for delivering junk mail

Man fed up with real estate agency ignoring the ‘no junk mail’ on his letterbox takes the company to COURT accusing it of trespassing

  • Mark Eldridge kept getting newsletters from Harcourts at his Sydney home
  • He demanded the company stop delivering to ‘no junk mail’ letterboxes
  • Harcourts offered to take him off the list but he refused to give out his address
  • Instead he took the company to court to make the demand official – but lost 

A renter ticked off over junk mail took a real estate agency to court for trespassing in his letterbox.

In a claim filed in the NSW District Court, Sydney resident Mark Eldridge sought an order that Harcourts West Ryde ceased placing ‘unsolicited material in letterboxes’.

He claimed the agency ignored the ‘no junk mail’ sticker he’d affixed to his letterbox in Dundas in 2018.

Come 2020, he began requesting the agency stop delivering material to all letterboxes marked no junk mail.

When that didn’t work, he sent a cease and desist letter and stated any further incursions onto his letterbox would be considered trespass.

In a reply letter sent to Mr Eldridge’s post office box, the agency said its newsletters, discussing various real estate issues, weren’t junk mail.

A renter ticked off over junk mail took a Sydney real estate agency to court for trespassing in his letterbox (stock image)

It offered to direct no further deliveries to the renter’s address but privacy-conscious Mr Eldridge declined to provide his residential address.

Mr Eldridge said he wouldn’t provide his address to a person with whom he had no relationship.

Agency director Wayne Beard told the District Court he had no desire to send materials to people who objected to receiving them, given the reputational damage that would flow.

Justice John Hatzistergos accepted the newsletters may be a source of annoyance to Mr Eldridge.

But his notices about trespass were insufficient to withdraw any implied licence the agency had to deliver him material.

Trespass also couldn’t be claimed given the landlord maintained possession of the letterbox.

The judge also wasn’t satisfied a reasonable person would view the newsletters as junk mail when faced with Mr Eldridge’s letterbox sticker.

The term ‘no junk mail’ lacked a defined or clear meaning.

‘For example, it is not clear as to whether it extends to all unsolicited/unaddressed mail including community distributions such as a lost animal notices, local newsletters or notices as to local development,’ Judge Hatzistergos said.

‘Perhaps that is the reason other agencies recommend other signage.’

Australia Post mentions in its terms and conditions it obeys ‘no unaddressed advertising material’ signs except in the case of community notices permitted by law.

Distributors of large-scale advertising material are trained to obey ‘No Advertising Material’ signs, according to the Distribution Standards Board.