Antiques vendor left with £500,000 invoice after ramming safety gate

An angry antiques dealer who destroyed a security gate with his van during a row with his neighbours has been left with a £500,000 court bill.

Luciano Gulshan and his father Janil got involved in a ‘ludicrously disproportionate’ 10-year feud over car parking with neighbours living in the £1million-plus flats next to their multimillion pound mews house near Lancaster Gate in central London.

The Gulshans objected to a car park security gate to the area where they and their neighbours park and the ‘over-hyped dispute’ grew so bitter that Luciano Gulshan ended up with a criminal record.

In an ‘extremely violent’ incident, he drove a worker’s van into the gate, destroying both the gate and the vehicle.

The fight later spilled into a costly civil court battle, with the directors of the residents’ company that own the flats, including 77-year-old Charles Raeched, claiming compensation for damage to the gate.

The father and son duo counterclaimed for the gate to be removed and over rights to the car parking area.

The pair claimed three parking spaces outside their mews, which are legally the property of the residents’ company that owns the adjacent apartment block, Maitland Court, belong to Janil Gulshan by squatters’ rights.

However, they are now facing court bills estimated at more than half a million after losing this battle.

Giving judgment, the judge ruled that, although they do have an exclusive right to park on the three spaces, Janil Gulshan does not own them, while it was ‘unreasonable’ to demand the gates are removed.

Judge Jane Evans-Gordon ordered the Gulshans to pay the fees, describing the case as an ‘over-hyped dispute about a security gate’.

After being told the case had run up costs estimated at more than £500,000, she said: ‘These neighbours’ disputes are just ludicrously disproportionate’.

They will have to pay £20,000 for damage to the gate, plus Maitland Court’s estimated £256,000 court costs, with £186,000 up front pending assessment, as well as their own substantial bills. 

Central London County Court heard the row revolved around a security gate and three parking spaces outside the Gulshans’ Cerney Mews house, owned by father and occupied by son, next door to the 90-apartment Maitland Court development.

The 800sq ft three-car parking area is part of a private car park owned by Maitland Court Ltd – the freehold company owned and run by the flats’ residents – and accessed via an electric key fob controlled gate from Gloucester Terrace.

The Gulshans complained that the gates interfered with their ability to get their antiques vans in and out of the car parking area.

They claimed their historic use of the three spaces – for parking vehicles, holding barbecues and as a garden – means they legally belong to Janil Gulshan via adverse possession, also known as squatters’ rights. 

But for the company, barrister Emily Windsor denied this and accused the Gulshans of being ‘exceptionally difficult neighbours… constantly looking to expand their property rights at Maitland Court’s expense.’

There had already been difficulties in getting the gates fixed after they had broken in September 2020, due to the Gulshans’ objections, when the ramming incident took place a month later, the court heard.

Fearing that there could be trouble, the residents’ company had arranged for workers to attend without warning the Gulshans in the hope that it could be avoided, said the judge in her judgment.

Judge Jane Evans-Gordon said: ‘In fact, this turned into an extremely violent incident where Luciano Gulshan rammed his van into one of the engineer’s vans, pushing it forward into a second van.

‘The first was a write-off. This put the engineers and security men at risk of serious physical harm: one may see them leaping out of the way as their vans are rammed.

‘After leaving his van and a short period of shouting, Luciano Gulshan returned to his van and rammed the engineer’s van a second time.

‘It is impossible to convey the seriousness and danger of this incident, which only comes across in the shocking CCTV footage.

‘Unsurprisingly, he received a criminal conviction.’

The residents’ company sued for damages for the cost of fixing the gates, which were damaged beyond repair in the incident, while the Gulshans launched their own case against the company.

They claimed the gates should be removed or replaced and also countersued, claiming that the area where they park their vans next to their mews is Janil Gulshan’s via ‘squatters’ rights.’

In her ruling, the judge criticised both men for their conduct during the battle, including their ‘creating evidence’ to boost claims to rights over the area.

The judge said: ‘When Luciano Gulshan was repeatedly ramming his large van into contractors’ vans, posing a physical, potentially fatal, risk to life, Janil Gulshan did nothing other than to continue shouting at Maitland Court’s managing agents and into his phone.

‘He did not appear even slightly shocked by what was going on and made no attempt of any sort to remonstrate with his son.

‘While Luciano Gulshan was telling Mr Raeched, in his presence, that ‘my father is not a man of words he is a man of action, if I want I can make a call and we can have 20 people here,’ he made no attempt to disassociate himself from these remarks or to deny that he was a violent man.

‘Luciano Gulshan kept insisting that he is not a violent man, on the contrary, a peace-maker and the incident of 7 October 2020 was an exception.

‘However, the CCTV footage of earlier incidents show a degree of violence and aggression when he kicked the gate and when he hit it with his car.

‘He also accepted in his oral evidence that he had stated that he could get a chain and pull the gate away, but did not seem to realise that this is a threatening thing to say, merely assertive.

‘He lacks insight into the impact of his behaviour on others. I also found Luciano Gulshan to be dishonest on occasion.’

In relation to ownership of the three spaces next to the mews, she said the real question was whether Janil Gulshan ‘reasonably believed’ it was his.

She said: ‘I am not satisfied that he did so believe.

‘His case is that he believed that he bought the forecourt in 1993… In my judgment, Janil Gulshan was disingenuous and dishonest in this respect.’ 

The Gulshans had also been ‘unreasonable’ in insisting that the security gate be removed or replaced with a smaller, less secure or manually operated gate, she continued.

The judge also ruled against them on their claim that they should be allowed to park on an extended area beside the parking spaces, although she did say they can use it to wash vehicles.

Their use of the extended area until relatively recently had been ‘occasional and casual’ and not enough for them to establish a right to such, she continued.

The judge said that, in recent times, they had ramped up their use of the area to boost their claims over it.

She added: ‘It seems to me that, on balance of probability, the defendants embarked on a program of activity from 2011/2012 in order to acquire further rights over Cerney Mews.

However, she found in their favour on their claim to an exclusive right to park in the three spaces closest to the mews, rejecting Maitland Court’s claim that others could use them too.

The damage to the gate was caused by the Gulshans’ trespass and so they would have to pay £20,000 damages to cover costs related to fixing it, she ruled.

Last week, the case returned to court for a ruling on who pays the lawyers’ bills for the row, with the judge ruling that the Gulshans are liable for it all.

The decision means they will have to pay £20,000 for damage to the gate, Maitland Court’s estimated £256,000 court costs, with £186,000 up front pending assessment, as well as their own substantial bills.

Maitland Court’s barrister, Ms Windsor, blamed the Gulshans for the case, which she said spiralled from a dispute about a damaged gate to a much wider battle over parking and ownership of land.

She said: ‘They effectively created a piece of litigation that has taken three years to litigate and has cost the parties in combined costs over £500,000.

Referring to the residents of Maitland Court, she added: ‘These people are not litigious. They are just people wanting to live in their homes.

‘They had no interest in being involved in this litigation at all. They just wanted to keep their cars safe.’