Should a line fence dispute go to small claims court or through the Line Fences Act fence-viewer process?

For the core question of whether a boundary fence needs to be built or repaired, and how the cost should be split, the Line Fences Act's fence-viewer process is generally the purpose-built and more appropriate route, rather than Small Claims Court. Fence-viewers are specifically set up to inspect the properties, weigh the circumstances, and issue a binding decision on exactly this kind of dispute, which tends to be a more specialized and efficient fit than a general civil court process.

Small Claims Court still has a role, but it's a different one. It's better suited to a related monetary claim, such as recovering a specific amount you've already spent on a fence where your neighbour hasn't paid their agreed or ordered share, rather than deciding in the first place whether a fence is needed and how to split the cost. In other words, the fence-viewer process is usually the right tool to establish the underlying obligation, while Small Claims Court can be the tool to enforce or recover money once that obligation is clear.

If you're at the start of a genuine boundary fence disagreement, starting with the Line Fences Act process makes more sense than heading straight to Small Claims Court.