They Promised Him a Peaceful Life for $1, But What They Did Next Is Absolutely Scandalous!

A former GP has triumphed in a significant court case after a father and son attempted to force him out of his home by cutting off his electricity. The legal battle has been the focus of much attention, highlighting the persistence and resilience of a beloved former doctor in the face of aggressive tactics.

At 95 years old, Dr. Kenneth Doust sold his five-bedroom rural home in Central Tilba, NSW, to an investment company, Riveaux Management Group, owned by Timothy Byrne and his son Riley. The sale, which took place in December 2020, was valued at $2.2 million. Dr. Doust’s Sunnyside farmhouse, which spans over 180 acres, had been a home to him for many years. With stunning views of the ocean and Tilba Tilba Lake, it was a place filled with both beauty and history, having been built in the 1890s.

As part of the sale agreement, Dr. Doust was granted a licence to continue living in part of the property for just $1 per year. The licence included a clause stating that he must “continue to personally reside permanently in the residence.” If he failed to do so, the company had the right to issue a termination notice.

Dr. Doust, who had served in the Vietnam War and later worked in various medical roles, including as a doctor at Bathurst Gaol, had become a cherished figure in the local community after semi-retiring to Narooma. Despite his busy schedule, he had managed to split his time between Sunnyside and another property in Narooma where his disabled wife lived.

In early August, however, Dr. Doust received a three-page termination notice accusing him of not living permanently at the Sunnyside farmhouse. The notice claimed he was residing in town, just 15 minutes away, and labelled him a trespasser. A month later, another letter accused him of breaching the licence by allowing others to stay on the property.

The situation took a more severe turn when the investment company ordered his electricity to be cut off. Dr. Doust, left without power, attempted to contact his energy company to restore the service, but the investment firm blocked the electrician from accessing the property. Forced to rely on a small generator for power, Dr. Doust quickly sought urgent legal intervention.

The NSW Supreme Court ruled in his favour, with Justice David Hammerschlag praising Dr. Doust’s clarity and honesty in his testimony. “An attack (such as it was) on his credit failed,” Justice Hammerschlag noted, adding that despite his advanced age, Dr. Doust “retains full mental acuity.” On the other hand, the judge was highly critical of Mr. Byrne, describing him as an “unpersuasive, unconvincing, manifestly self-serving and less than frank witness.”

During the court proceedings, it was revealed that Mr. Byrne and his son had conducted “seven separate random spot checks” on Dr. Doust’s living patterns throughout June. According to Mr. Byrne, he had visited the home up to 50 times over several months and had only seen Dr. Doust there a few times. However, Dr. Doust explained that his daughter, who was the primary carer for his wife, had been away for a period, prompting him to spend several nights in town caring for her. Despite this, he continued to return to Sunnyside each day to manage personal tasks.

Dr. Doust also expressed concern that the Byrnes might try to block his access to the property by constructing a fence. Justice Hammerschlag understood this worry, noting, “In all the circumstances, his concern is understandable.” The judge added that Mr. Byrne’s actions seemed to be aimed at pushing Dr. Doust out of the house, dismissing his claim that he was only trying to enforce the terms of the licence.

Ultimately, the court concluded that Dr. Doust had indeed been living permanently at Sunnyside, and Mr. Byrne had no right to terminate the licence. “Absence for periods, even long periods, is not necessarily inconsistent with permanent residence,” Justice Hammerschlag ruled.

This victory for Dr. Doust underscores the importance of legal protections for residents and the resilience of individuals standing up against unfair treatment. The case also serves as a reminder of the challenges faced by older individuals in maintaining their homes and independence, especially when powerful interests seek to take advantage of them.