Is this Sydney’s worst neighbour? Inside a lawyer-turned-artist’s reign of terror at Darling Point

Is this Sydney’s worst neighbour? Inside a lawyer-turned-artist’s reign of terror at Darling Point by Bevan Shields

If Sydney gave out medals for the neighbour from hell, lawyer-turned-artist Syan Olsen might just win gold.

But her reign of terror at Easthaven – a mid-century waterfront apartment building in Darling Point – has come to an end. Olsen has 28 days to vacate her mother’s one-bedroom property following a drama-packed NSW Supreme Court case which exposed an alarming chain of events over the past five years.

Easthaven residents have each had to fork out for special levies of up to $3500 a month to pay for legal action against the woman who made life in Darling Point a misery, highlighting the costly and complicated gymnastics sometimes required to banish even the worst of neighbours.

As Justice Gregory Sirtes mused, Darling Point is a prized peninsula offering parks and water views for those lucky enough to live there. “But as this case shows, none of it guarantees harmony among those who share this amenity.”

The saga began in late 2021 when Olsen moved into a fifth floor apartment owned by her mother Sue-Maree. The mid-30s lawyer lived a glamorous existence; she had worked for several years with controversial barrister Charles Waterstreet at Forbes Chambers, was pivoting to a career as an artist, and spent sunny days partying on Sydney Harbour.

According to Olsen’s version of events – which have been comprehensively demolished by Justice Sirtes – she was nothing short of a model resident. Her mother even claimed in court that women living at Easthaven targeted her daughter because they were jealous of the “beautiful young lady”.

To her neighbours, she was trouble from the start. Complaints began almost immediately after she moved in. Music blared all hours of the night, forcing Matthew Davis and Cecilia Barrett, who leased next door, to complain. Things got so bad the couple twice had to sleep in their office.

Despite swearing in an affidavit she had never sent abusive messages, text messages in March 2022 show Olsen accused Davis and Barrett of being “a pair of weirdos who watch me and talk about me to the point it’s creepy”. She then issued threats, including references to an apprehended violence order and the citizenship status of Barrett.

“Leave me the f--k alone. You don’t get to tell me to turn off my TV,” she wrote. “If you continue to do it I’m going to go for an AVO. Call the police if you think the noise suffices a complaint and watch them laugh in your face. This is your first and final warning to leave me alone and get a life – both of you.”

The noise didn’t stop. Fed up, Davis and Barrett moved out in July 2022. Another couple who moved in also terminated their lease early as a result of Olsen’s behaviour.

CCTV captures Syan Olsen and her mother Sue-Maree Olsen distributing damaging fliers in mailboxes and to residents.NSW SUPREME COURT

She also spilled paint in common rooms and the boat deck. Toxic fumes from spray paint cans forced some residents to close doors and windows. Paint dripped onto the balcony of Timothy Green and his wife Slendy Sanchez Monroy.

Other issues piled up: Olsen stored household items in the hallway outside her apartment. Mess was left in common areas, including four garbage bags filled with the leftovers of a “huge seafood BBQ”. Food was dropped on carpet near the lifts. A thick trail of glue was found in a corridor. Her Toyota Camry was parked for hours in the complex’s car wash bay.

She allegedly referred to the 14-year-old son of one resident as “faggot boy”. Justice Sirtes said he was unable to make a positive finding on the balance of probabilities that Olsen uttered the slur, but he noted the boy’s father was an honest and careful witness. He was also unsettled by Olsen’s vague and generally unresponsive answers about whether she said it. “I consider that any person who was accused of calling a 14-year-old boy a ‘faggot’, and who had not done so, would immediately and emphatically deny the allegation when confronted with it,” the judge said. “One could imagine they might even become indignant at being accused of such a disgraceful act. By contrast, Ms Olsen’s response was tepid and evasive. This was remarkable and, indeed, telling.”

Syan Olsen moved into the apartment in December 2021. INSTAGRAM 

Olsen also poured water from her balcony into apartments below, causing damage.

A confrontation over the water exploded on Australia Day 2023 after Slendy Sanchez Monroy knocked on Olsen’s door and complained. What happened next is highly contested. Sanchez Monroy told the Supreme Court as she was returning to her apartment, Olsen “came out of nowhere, pushed me and scratched my chest”. Olsen claimed the reverse happened and Sanchez Monroy chased her, lunged at her, and butted her with her upper body.

Both parties called the police; Olsen was arrested and charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm and spent a night in a cell at Waverley Police Station. She was subsequently found not guilty.

Back at Easthaven, Olsen installed a CCTV device on her front door. The “peephole camera” recorded other residents in the hallway, including tenants of the unit next door and their visitors. The camera also captured interactions between Olsen and other residents, as well as maintenance staff. She posted footage from the camera on her Instagram account.

She then stuck handwritten notes to her door, including one which read: “This security camera is here for my protection due to ongoing corruption at Easthaven and the multiple death threats I’ve received. There are a number of units currently under investigation by government authorities.”

A note left on a neighbour’s door. NSW SUPREME COURT

Olsen took a bicycle belonging to the wife of a resident and offered a series of curious explanations in court for the bizarre act. At one point she claimed she had met with an Indigenous elder who runs a “juvenile charity with the Kings Cross Police Station”, and that she had wondered whether she could “donate” bikes. The Herald sought to contact Olsen for comment.

CCTV captures Syan Olsen taking a bike belonging to another Easthaven resident.NSW SUPREME COURT

Easthaven residents were at their wits’ end. But from there, things got worse.

The Darling Point building is owned by a company of the same name, and the exclusive right to live in an apartment is secured by ownership of shares. Easthaven Limited is run by a board of directors, which handled many of the complaints about Olsen and issued various breach notices to her mother.

Furious about her perceived treatment, Olsen started targeting several directors and residents, initially via flyers and letters left around the building. The documents made wild and unfounded allegations of misappropriation of funds, conflicts of interest, privacy violations and criminal offences. There were “hidden millions” located in undisclosed bank accounts, she claimed. Olsen in court suggested there was a military grade antenna pointing in the direction of her apartment.

She also waged an email and letter campaign to raise scurrilous allegations about goings-on in Easthaven with an array of government agencies including the federal Department of Finance, Australian Financial Security Authority, federal Attorney-General’s Department, Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, NSW Police, the Australian Tax Office’s serious crime taskforce, the Australian Cyber Security Centre, the NSW corruption watchdog, Woollahra Council and the NSW Building Commission.

Not content with that, Olsen adopted an even more sinister approach.

Letters of complaint were soon sent to the employers of Easthaven’s directors and residents, including HWLE law firm partner Kirston Gerathy. As Christmas 2024 approached, Olsen emailed senior executives at Gerathy’s firm, claiming without foundation the lawyer had improperly used legal sources, potentially facilitated insurance claims for legal fees, and engaged in retaliatory and harassing behaviour towards whistleblowers. Olsen warned the HWLE partners they may be implicated, and the matters should be investigated.

The firm conducted an investigation and confirmed Gerathy had not breached any rules or internal policies. The saga took a serious toll on Gerathy, who viewed Olsen’s allegations as “malicious and grievous attack” designed to punish her for serving as an Easthaven director. “It is difficult to disagree with this assessment,” Justice Sirtes concluded.

Olsen also complained to the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner about Gerathy and another lawyer who has lived in Easthaven for two decades, Craig Young. The complaints were eventually dismissed.

Darling Point is one of Sydney’s most sought-after suburbs. ROBERT PEARCE 

Olsen also emailed the ABC to raise allegations about another neighbour in Easthaven, producer Alison McClymont. McClymont is the sister of Herald chief investigative reporter Kate McClymont, leading Olsen to dub them the “McClymonsters”. Olsen told the ABC she looked forward to a prompt and principled response to her claims. Justice Sirtes wryly noted: “Perhaps unsurprisingly, no such response was ever forthcoming.”

As the campaign escalated and breaches of rules mounted, the board had enough and called an extraordinary general meeting for June last year. Forty-one shareholders unanimously voted to invoke powers to force Olsen’s mother to transfer her shares in Easthaven to someone else approved by the directors – in effect removing her as an owner of the apartment her daughter was living in.

Sue-Maree Olsen challenged that decision in court but lost last week, when Justice Sirtes ordered the apartment be vacated within 28 days. After five years, the neighbour from hell is about to officially leave the building – and is on the lookout for a new place in Sydney to call home.

From Sydney to the Caribbean via Dubai: How a CEO with possible terror links allegedly took millions

Why are people protesting across Europe?

School conditions, unaffordable housing and the cost of living have brought demonstrators on to the streets in several countries

EU investigates Booking.com over online fraud and phishing risks

The EU's digital watchdog said it would assess whether the online platform 'properly identified' risks linked to the spread of illegal content such as non-existent properties and fraudsters portraying themselves as the owner of a property and putting it up for rent.

Cost-of-living crisis? You wouldn’t know it by looking at these companies’ profits Greg Jericho

From Sydney to the Caribbean via Dubai: How a CEO with possible terror links allegedly took millions

From Sydney to the Caribbean via Dubai: How a CEO with possible terror links allegedly took millions

A licensed investment company allegedly scammed its customers out of their life savings — and now its CEO may have links to terrorism. 

It has sparked concerns about deep flaws in Australia’s financial regulatory regime.

Karim Farag is the former chief executive of Main Group FX, a licensed investment firm in Australia that disappeared three years ago, leaving at least 13 investors collectively $2 million in the red.

Now the ABC can reveal Mr Farag has alleged connections to an organisation accused of funding terrorism.

Mr Farag maintains he has nothing to hide and is willing to cooperate with authorities.

I Teach at a Business School. It’s Time to Shut Them Down. New York Times 

 I wish I had the bandwidth to post on this article. It’s consistent with what yours truly and Aurelien have been saying about the breakdown of elite competence, but importantly describes a key, perhaps the, reason. 

Same Rules, Different Ruins Craig Tindale  

I Teach at a Business School. It’s Time to Shut Them Down

 "Three great forces rule the world: stupidity, fear and greed." 

~ Albert Einstein

I Teach at a Business School. It’s Time to Shut Them Down

By Chris Marquis

This fall, another cohort of ambitious young professionals has arrived at business schools around the world for two-year programs with price tags in the six figures. Their presence at some of the nicest and shiniest buildings on campus renews a familiar question: What exactly is an M.B.A. for?

Business schools have always struggled to justify their place in the university. A medical school’s core justification is health, and a law school’s is justice — undisputed public goods. Business schools are organized explicitly around a private good: the pursuit of profit. The American sociologist Thorstein Veblen identified this tension a century ago, criticizing university schools focused on commerce because they “need imply nothing in the way of serviceability to the common good.”

When schools like Wharton and Harvard Business School were established, they were seen as overly vocational, and to build legitimacy their founders framed management as a profession, on par with law and medicine. But education in those fields rested on established bodies of knowledge — centuries of case law, natural sciences like biology — that management lacked.

The solution, devised in the 1920s by the Harvard dean Wallace Donham, was to borrow the teaching style used in law and medicine: the case study. It became the signature method of business education. To this day, professors assign 10- to 20-page descriptions of business challenges culminating in a decision point that students then debate in class. The method is pervasive: In 2024, Harvard Business School sold nearly 17 million case studies to various business programs around the world

One well-known case study that I have taught many times is “Rob Parson at Morgan Stanley.” The facts are simple enough to produce a lively classroom debate. Mr. Parson has delivered impressive results and is viewed as a star performer, but his abrasive and go-it-alone style has alienated people across the firm. In the classroom, students take the position of his manager, Paul Nasr, and decide whether to promote him, delay the promotion or push him out.

Nearly three decades after publication, it remains among H.B.S.’s most widely used cases, and the dilemma is enduring: Should results be rewarded even when the person producing them damages the culture around him? In class, students vote on Mr. Nasr’s options and often role-play the difficult conversation between him and Mr. Parson. The discussion can be dramatic, engaging and effective.

But my experience has shown that by asking students to inhabit Mr. Nasr’s role, the case study narrows their imaginations to the decision facing one senior manager. Deeper questions — like whether Mr. Parson is himself a product of investment-banking culture — are rarely raised. Mr. Parson becomes an individual problem, when the larger issue may be an industry that rewards rainmaking, hierarchy and masculine performance norms, then acts surprised when they cause conflict.

When the case method is used in medicine and law, it serves a different set of goals. Medical students work through detailed patient scenarios — symptoms, test results, histories and social and economic context. Law students read real court opinions, dissecting facts, arguments and judgments. In both fields, students are confronted by the messiness of reality, and the goal is to foster disciplined skepticism: ask what’s missing, challenge assumptions and test how an analysis could be wrong.

Business school cases operate on another logic, focused not on inquiry but on decision making. H.B.S.’s own overview of the method describes students imagining “themselves in the decision-maker’s role” and “taking decisive action.” The point is to practice acting like the person in charge — or, as George W. Bush, a graduate of Harvard Business School, put it, “the decider.”

By overestimating the importance of individual decision makers, the business school classroom avoids harder questions: Who made this person the legitimate protagonist? Whose knowledge is absent? Why are workers, regulators, communities, ecosystems or citizens rarely given equal standing?

I wrote dozens of case studies during my decade at H.B.S., some of which are described as classics and best sellers. These are not products of independent research, but carefully packaged corporate narratives. The disclaimer printed in tiny type on every H.B.S. case concedes this point: Cases “are not intended to serve … as sources of primary data.” The data they include can be selective, biased or even fabricated.

For the many cases I wrote under the guidance of senior faculty members, events that reflected poorly on the company were softened or omitted and the roles of certain executives were burnished. The companies held final approval, with drafts reviewed by their lawyers and P.R. staff. Rather than being vehicles for disinterested learning, as one might expect at a university, the case studies end up as instruments of reputation management.

Corporate influence feeds a larger problem: The cases almost always feature winners, making it easy to mistake luck or timing for a proven strategy. Failures, dead ends and nonmarket solutions are rarely considered. Before Enron’s fraud was exposed, its business model was presented in admiring terms by at least five H.B.S. case studies. More damning still, the strategies that later led to its collapse — its asset-light model, its trading platform — were portrayed as innovations. Questions about deregulated energy markets, revolving-door oversight and opaque accounting went unasked.

Furthermore, edits that push the case narratives away from reality are often meant to make it “work” in a classroom. Complexity is systematically shaved away, and dissenting voices often go unheard. Real organizations don’t move in clearly delineated phases toward a decision point, but business school teaching materials often do — compressing timelines, dropping messy subplots and smoothing over contradictions to produce clean narrative arcs and satisfying problems to debate.

The result is a curriculum built around false narratives. Some of the most celebrated ideas in management have not been the ones that survived peer review or replication, but the ones that could be turned into TED Talks, consulting frameworks or airport best sellers. Faculty members are rewarded not for knowledge but for performance — selling a big idea with a memorable label that promises “success” or “disruption.”

Business schools have a divided mission: They seek to legitimize an economic system focused on private gain while also developing guardrails to tame it. They found a remarkable way to manage this tension: the “win-win” story in which the conflict between private gain and public good simply evaporates.

A classic win-win is the contention that environmental programs like reducing waste or using LED lights can save money or that decent pay and benefits lower costs by reducing employee turnover. Business schools now claim to educate “leaders who make a difference in the world,” as H.B.S. proclaims in its mission, while Wharton pursues a “quest for positive global impact.”

These aspirations are built on the delusional but widely accepted idea of “stakeholder capitalism”: that companies can produce climate stability, fair wages, healthy communities and functioning democracies while also delivering profits. Executives promise that technology will solve our environmental problems; voluntary measurement systems are offered as appropriate alternatives to public accountability; ethics is rebranded as competitive advantage rather than moral obligation.

During the 2010s, stakeholder capitalism was quickly woven into M.B.A. syllabuses. But when researchers examined whether the corporations that signed on to a statement pledging commitment to this ethos actually changed their behavior on wages, investment, governance or climate, they found little evidence of a shift. The statement was less a new doctrine than an effort at reputation management — and a ploy to avoid oversight.

Recent evidence shows that many foundational studies supporting the win-win idea were based on flawed data or couldn’t be replicated. Yet faculty members keep researching, writing about and teaching the topic — suggesting an ideological project more than an academic exercise.

Much of what has happened in business schools turned out to be the leading edge of a broader transformation: the corporatization of the university itself. Institutions now chase rankings, donors and corporate partnerships, tout their contributions to innovation and growth and treat everything else as overhead. Students are “customers,” and the degrees are “products” with greater and lesser “market shares.” University strategic documents talk about “brand positioning” for departments and “R.O.I.s” on tenure lines.

Once you accept this frame, it becomes hard to defend the existence of a philosophy seminar or a history department for any reason other than the revenue it generates. The hiring of non-tenure-track adjunct professors follows: If education is “content” delivered to fee-paying “customers,” why keep full-time scholars on the payroll when you can hire contingent, low-wage instructors?

Business schools’ success in placing their graduates in high-paying jobs boosts their rankings; high rankings attract more applicants and allow higher tuitions; and wealthy alumni fund new programs and buildings that elevate the school’s status. It is a self-reinforcing cycle — a flywheel, in M.B.A. parlance — that pulls money, attention and legitimacy away from the disciplines best equipped to question this logic: history, philosophy, sociology, political theory.

The university’s capacity to cultivate historical memory, moral judgment and democratic imagination is weakened, even as its capacity to churn out data analysts, financial engineers and “innovation” managers grows. The irony — and danger — is that in the age of A.I., the thinking fostered in the arts and humanities is increasingly urgent. The domination of business schools is not only physical and financial; it is intellectual, and it is crowding out liberal education.

I’ve come to a grim conclusion: The problem with business schools is not repairable misalignment but the design itself. Business schools are not malfunctioning institutions; they are highly efficient machines doing exactly what they were designed to do. An ethics elective here, a sustainability center there, a “responsible leadership” badge — they all serve to legitimize the machine, not change its output.

The most honest solution I’ve come across is to replace the category entirely. Stuart Hart, an emeritus professor at Cornell and an early sustainability champion, told me he reached that conclusion after trying every internal route to make M.B.A. curriculums more responsible. The institution itself was the problem. At the University of Vermont, Dr. Hart has since developed a new form of business degree focused on societal impact — a small but concrete test of the case for starting over. In this program, sustainability is not a lone elective but run through the whole curriculum, and students spend the summer embedded in a mission-driven company.

What would that clean-sheet logic mean across an entire university? One starting point is the organization theorist Martin Parker’s call to create “schools for organizing” rather than schools for business, centered on how humans coordinate for shared ends. Students would study co-ops, unions and social movements alongside the shareholder corporation. The central question would shift from “How do we maximize shareholder value?” to “How do different forms of organization distribute power, risk and reward — and which should we strengthen?”

Dismantling the business school as a single high-status silo that professionalizes private gain may seem a heavy lift. But universities can create cross-disciplinary pathways for students who want to work in business without submitting them to the business school worldview. Some already offer “business and society” majors or master’s programs in organizations and public purpose, drawing on sociology, law and public policy. The point would not be to abolish the study of markets, but to return it to settings where questions of power, history, democracy and ecological limits cannot be so easily avoided.

For most of my career, I’ve taught electives focused on responsible business and sustainability — gratifying work, but largely preaching to the converted. Recently, at Cambridge, I introduced a required sustainability course filled with future bankers, consultants and tech executives who once would have steered clear.

Many arrive deeply skeptical, convinced that any time a corporation acts in a responsible way it must be a marketing ploy; some push back hard on ideas they see as threats to growth. But forcing them out of their bubbles into a shared conversation about the natural environment, inequality and discrimination has produced the kind of debate that is so often missing in education today.

This is not enough. One required course cannot redeem the business school model. If anything, teaching it has intensified my disappointment. The course is relegated to the very end of the program — a telling signal of its importance — and amid a growing backlash against sustainability, there is some pressure to reduce or eliminate the class, to appease the customers who now drive decisions in higher education.

Still, the experience has reminded me why abolishing business schools cannot mean abandoning the people in them. The goal is not to write off the students as aspiring selfish capitalists; it is to stop funneling them through a machine that narrows their sense of possibility. Many of my students arrive on campus wanting to work on the crises that our economic system has created. What they lack is an institution that is worthy of their better impulses.

More on business and finance

Opinion | Oren Cass

The Finance Industry Is a Grift. Let’s Start Treating It That Way.

Feb. 6, 2026

Opinion | Ezra Klein and Rollin Hu

Trump vs. the Bond Market

Aug. 28, 2026

Opinion | Emi Nietfeld

Gen Z Fell Out of Love With Work. I Don’t Blame Them.

July 23, 2026

Christopher Marquis is a professor at the University of Cambridge Judge Business School and the author of “The Profiteers.”

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp and Threads.

A version of this article appears in print on Oct. 18, 2026, Section SR, Page 6 of the New York edition with the headline: Let’s Abolish Business Schools. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe