12:27pm Tuesday 27th July 2010
Judges in two Court of Appeal cases today bemoaned costly boundary disputes over land worth very little which only cause ''ill-feeling'' between neighbours.
Lord Justice Lloyd, introducing his judgment, said the case had ''features in common'' with many disputes between neighbours where the legal costs are disproportionate to the value of the land at stake.
William Steward put the value of the disputed land on the Isle of Wight at nil but had spent £120,000 fighting the case.
His neighbours, Harold and Victoria Gallop, had spent even more and agreed the land was ''of very little commercial value''.
The judge said that he had been told by Mr Steward that in 2006 Mr Gallop had told him that the dispute was going to cost them a lot of money.
''That was a correct prediction, but I wonder whether either of them could have imagined at that time that the costs incurred would be on anything like the scale of what we were told have by now been spent.''
Lord Justice Lloyd said the court had reached the conclusion that the whole issue must be looked at again at a new trial, ''so that, unfortunately, yet more costs will be incurred''.
In the second case, three appeal judges found for Gillian Hodgson in her dispute with neighbours Ian Pennock and his wife, Diane, over ownership of a stream running between their properties.
Lord Justice Mummery, giving the ruling of the three judges, said: ''The unfortunate consequences of a case like this are that, in the absence of any compromise, someone wins, someone loses, it always costs a lot of money and usually generates a lot of ill-feeling that does not end with the litigation.
''None of those things are good for neighbours.''
Mrs Hodgson, a mother of three, who has lived at ''Kalmara'', in Moor Road, Cotherstone, near Barnard Castle, Co Durham, for nearly 17 years claimed the brook was part of her land and objected to her neighbours building a stone wall along its southern bank.
Mr and Mrs Pennock, both in their 40s, who built their home, ''Dalegarth'', after buying the land at auction in 2005, insisted that the brook belongs to them and marks the boundary of their land.
When they lost their case in the High Court, Mr Pennock, a barrister, challenged the ruling at the appeal court where his case was dismissed today by judges who were asked to decide on the true meaning of the conveyance of the land in 1993.
The other dispute involved land at Apse Heath, near Sandown, where Mr Steward has a home called ''Galley Norne'' and some 18 acres which has been in his family since 1922.
Mr and Mrs Gallop bought their property, ''Thornbury'', in 2005 and set about clearing their overgrown garden.
Lord Justice Lloyd said: ''In so doing they also cleared a significant length of what Mr Steward says was a hedge belonging to him which formed the boundary feature between the two properties.''
He also claimed that they had put up a fence and built two sheds and an aviary partly on land belonging to him and sought damages and an end to trespass.
Lord Justice Lloyd and two other appeal judges allowed the appeal by Mr and Mrs Gallop but said there must be a new hearing in the county court to decide the relevance of a 1915 deed and other documents on the siting of a ditch and hedge.
© Copyright 2001-2012 Newsquest Media Group
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/trade_directory/