Court expresses "great pity" in neighbours' dispute over fence

Tuesday 06 July 2021

The Royal Court has expressed its “great pity” that a dispute between neighbours in St. Clement over a 10ft strip of land led to a legal battle, with one party having to pay £2,500 in damages and 80% of the other party’s costs.

In a recent judgment, the Court ordered that Roger Trenouth-Wood should pay four-fifths of the yet-to-be-determined legal costs of Darren and Mary Hodges.

The neighbours’ dispute was around the right of Mr and Mrs Hodges to use a strip of rough land, which gives them access to an estate road from their property.

The Hodges argued that they contractually enjoyed right of way over the strip, which forms the western section of a piece of land owned by Mr Trenouth-Wood.

However, Mr Trenouth-Wood, who does not live there, disputed this. Ongoing disputes between the neighbours ultimately led him to erect a fence at the northern end of the right of way last June, thus preventing the Hodges from using it.

The Hodges took legal advice, but Mr Trenouth-Wood failed to comply with a request from their lawyer asking him to remove the fence. This led the couple to start legal proceedings at the end of last year. 

After reviewing contracts for the properties going back to the 1960s, the Royal Court judged at the end of a trial in March that the Hodges did enjoy a right of way. 

It ordered that Mr Trenouth-Wood must take down the fence and all other barriers before 18 March, which he complied with. 

The court also ruled that he must not impede the Hodges or any of their visitors from using the right of way in future and clear all vegetation from it over 8cm.

The Hodges made a claim for damages, having been denied access to the land for nine months, which the Court judged should be £2,500.

In their claim, they said that they would habitually use the zone "for the purpose of taking their children’s bikes and family canoes to and from the property; for the removal of garden waste; for access of paying visitors (the Plaintiffs run an Airbnb); for the Plaintiffs themselves, and occasionally a vehicle", according to the court judgment.

The effect of the right of way being blocked was that "their gardeners had to bring heavy machinery through their home and not via the garden which was difficult and particularly so during the public health crisis when people needed (if it was lawful to do so) to enter their home wearing a mask; bikes, canoes and other equipment needed to be carried through the home."

They further suggested that the blocking of the right of way was part of a "culmination of acts of bullying and intimidation by the Defendant over a long period, which both Plaintiffs found upsetting."

A counterclaim for damages by Mr Trenouth-Wood was dismissed.

He had asked to the court to give him access to maintain his property and to continue to finish works of construction to a shed which he had built partly on top of the party wall to the south of his land, but "could point to no contractual or other right permitting him to enjoy access to the Plaintiffs’ land as he contended and accordingly this claim was dismissed."

Mr Trenouth-Wood also suggested the Hodges had "stolen various low value items from him from the right of way over a period including planks of wood, fencing and other similar items". However, the court found that he had "insufficient evidence" that such items had been stolen, nor was he able to provide evidence on their value.

He further "claimed compensation exceeding £500 at the rate of £10 per day in relation to parking on the right of way by workmen carrying out building work for the Plaintiffs to their property in or about 2018."

The court said it accepted the argument of Mr Hodges, who said that he had consistently asked the workmen not to park there but they had done so anyway. However, the court heard that this was on "fewer occasions" than Mr Trenmouth-Wood suggested, and that, in any case, the parking caused him "little or no actual inconvenience."

It also highlighted the fact that Mr Trenmouth-Wood had himself "permitted workmen to leave vehicles belonging to tradesmen carrying out work on his property on the right of way, including a digger being left for several weeks on the right of way, entirely blocking it and preventing any vehicular use of the right of way."

Mr and Mrs Hodges also claimed their legal costs. Mr Trenouth-Wood, who represented himself through proceedings, argued that the Court should make no costs order.

In his decision on costs, the Deputy Bailiff, Robert MacRae, said: “Various criticisms of [Mr Trenouth-Wood’s] conduct in the litigation were made by [the Hodges] but, in my view, they are not of substance and, in any event, do not amount to unreasonable conduct.  

“The Court imposed a tight timetable on the parties, which both parties managed to keep, to ensure that this matter was determined quickly.  

“[Mr Trenouth-Wood’s] more or less complied with the Court’s directions even though he was unrepresented. 

“As to the correspondence between the parties prior to litigation, which was pointed to by both parties as evidence of unreasonableness on the part of the other, the contents of the same were unremarkable in the context of this sort of dispute.  

“In any event, the criticisms made by the parties regarding each other in this regard do not have any impact on the costs incurred. 

“It is a great pity that this matter was not the subject of neighbourly communication by way of a direct meeting between the parties prior to proceedings being commenced and both parties share some responsibility for that.”