Mother who lower subsequent door’s hedge in ‘land seize’ handed £27,000 invoice

A mom who hacked down her subsequent door neighbour’s holly hedge to make her flowerbed two toes greater has been hit with a £27,000 courtroom invoice after her ‘neighbour from hell’ sued.

Tersia Van Zyl and husband Stiaan, each 40, had been taken to courtroom after neighbour Peter Walker-Smith accused them of wrongly having the hedge that separated their gardens in Claygate, Surrey lower down. 

Mr Walker-Smith – who’s company treasurer for tobacco large Imperial Brands, the makers of Rizla and Golden Virginia – lives within the backside flooring flat whereas the married couple stay within the flat above. 

Each property has a backyard on the rear of the home and Mrs Van Zyl, who was ‘excited’ about having a backyard in her first household residence, lower down the holly hedge separating them so she may alter the construction of her backyard, Central London County Court heard.

But Mr Walker-Smith, 39, sued the couple, claiming that they had no proper to have the hedge torn up because it was not theirs.

Following a trial, Judge Alan Saggerson blasted the couple’s ‘spiteful’ resolution to chop the hedge down once they knew there was an ongoing dispute over who owned it. 

After it was found the hedge straddled the boundary between the gardens, Mr and Mrs Van Zyl have been ordered to pay Mr Walker-Smith’s £25,000 authorized prices.

The couple additionally agreed to pay £2,200 damages for trespass, having put up the fence to exchange the hedge on their neighbour’s land. They even have to maneuver the fence again into their backyard.

During the trial final month, the courtroom heard that Mr Walker-Smith purchased his floor flooring flat in Albany Crescent, Claygate, in 2014.

Mr Van Zyl, a amount surveyor, and his spouse moved into the maisonette above the next 12 months, however the relationship between the neighbours broke down fully afterwards.

Each property had a again backyard, separated by a holly hedge, the decide was advised.

For the Van Zyls, barrister Lina Mattsson mentioned Mrs Van Zyl, a mom and eager gardener, needed to cut down the hedge with a view to make extra room for her vegetation.

From the witness field, she advised the decide: ‘I really like gardening, I used to be excited,’ however added: ‘The hedge was consuming kind of a 3rd of my flower mattress that I needed to make use of another way.’

The barrister mentioned Mr and Mrs Van Zyl obtained a surveyor’s report and had been satisfied that the hedge separating the 2 gardens was completely on their land.

Mr Walker-Smith disagreed, however regardless of that, the couple in April 2019 engaged contractors to come back in and tear up the hedge and exchange it with a close-boarded fence.

For Mr Walker-Smith, barrister Jonathan Wills mentioned the couple had ‘unilaterally and outrageously eliminated the hedge between the events’ gardens at a time when the events’ solicitors had been corresponding as to the disputed location of the boundary.’

To make issues worse, the fence which the Van Zyls erected was on Mr Walker-Smith’s aspect of the boundary line, that means that they had successfully land-grabbed a part of his backyard, Mr Wills mentioned.

‘Mr Walker-Smith’s case is that there was a longstanding hedge, which shaped the apparent dividing line between the events’ gardens.

‘The hedge ought to have remained, and the events ought to have continued to get pleasure from their respective gardens on both aspect.’

Removal of the hedge – mentioned by a gardener to be 700mm huge – and substitute with a fence left Mr Walker-Smith’s backyard feeling extra ‘confined,’ Mr Wills argued.

‘This is not the most important land seize on this planet, however in a backyard that’s triangular, it does make a distinction,’ he advised the decide.

Giving proof, Mrs Van Zyl mentioned she thought of Mr Walker-Smith the ‘neighbour from hell,’ as a result of the row had taken away her ‘enjoyment’ of her residence.

‘This was my first property, the place I obtained married, the place my kids had been born,’ she mentioned.

But Mr Wills mentioned that Mrs Van Zyl herself deserved to be dubbed ‘the neighbour from hell’.

‘It is perhaps mentioned that Mr Walker-Smith is not the neighbour from hell, however that it’s the neighbour who has eliminated a hedge that was there for very a few years.

‘He has been goaded by having the hedge eliminated, regardless of his need that it keep.’

At the tip of the trial, Judge Saggerson lamented the ‘unlucky’ dispute, including: ‘Each occasion has regarded the opposite as being unreasonable, even spiteful, and had event to think about that the opposite has acted in ways in which look like intentionally designed to worsen the opposite.’

He discovered that the ‘cheap layman’ wanting on the gardens when the hedge was there would have thought that the boundary ran down the center of it.

It meant that the Van Zyls had no proper to take such a ‘spiteful unilateral motion’ in eradicating it and placing within the new fence the place they did.

The decide mentioned: ‘It is sort of clear to me that the fence right here is within the flawed place. It trespasses on Mr Walker-Smith’s land and it must be moved.

‘As a trespass it must be moved to…roughly alongside a line that will be the center of the hedge.’

Last week, the decide made an order that the Van Zyls pay their neighbour’s legal professionals’ payments, with £25,000 up entrance forward of a full evaluation, and £2,200 on prime for trespass.

As nicely because the hedge, the case had additionally concerned complaints by the Van Zyls about Mr Walker-Smith placing his bins on their land.

The decide made a declaration that Mr Walker-Smith had no proper to place his bins on his neighbours’ property.

Just as a result of his property had traditionally loved a proper to go over the Van Zyls’ land to hold coal to and from a bunker didn’t imply that he now has a proper to make use of it for bin storage.

However, as a result of Mr Walker-Smith’s bins have been positioned in his personal entrance backyard for a while now, the decide refused to make an order regarding them.