Select a region
Neighbours engaged in a bitter and long-running dispute over a patio, laundry area and garage have been urged to “wipe the slate clean and start afresh with a new relationship” by the Royal Court.
So how did things end up escalating so far? Express takes a closer look at the case, which saw a former Bailiff and two Jurats take a road trip to St. Ouen...
The Court ruled that neither a walled patio belonging the owners of La Botellerie Cottage in St. Ouen nor the parking of vehicles on their land constituted “an unlawful encroachment” onto the right of way of the owner of the next-door La Botellerie Farm to a garage and a field behind the properties.
The owner of La Botellerie Farm, Joy Morgan, sought an order from the Court forcing the owners of the adjoining La Botelleire Cottage, Caroline and David Heaven, to remove the walled patio and laundry drying area and restore it to how it was.
She also called for Mr and Mrs Heaven to be prohibited from parking cars on their land outside of a ‘contract of arrangement’ that she had prepared.
The couple, however, denied that their neighbour had any right to these orders being made.
Pictured: The properties in dispute are off a lane in St. Ouen (Google Maps).
In order to make its decision, the Royal Court conducted a review of the respective titles to the properties, of the difficulties which currently exist and an assessment as to the extent to which Mrs Morgan was actually entitled to the orders she sought.
The Court, made up of Commissioner Sir William Bailhache sitting with Jurats Jerry Ramsden and Karen Le Cornu, visited the property and drove into it from both directions along the public road running past the homes to assess access.
The two properties used to be owned by the same person, Mrs Morgan’s grandfather, but was split between his two children. La Botellerie Cottage was later sold.
Over a two-day sitting, the Court looked in detail at various legal documents, including the Deed of Division which set out how the farmhouse was split.
It also looked at the practicalities of access, including how the farmer working the rear field, which is owned by Mrs Morgan, accessed it, and how the rear of another nearby property she owns could be accessed by a tanker to have its oil tank filled.
The Court ruled: “...The Defendants [Mr and Mrs Heaven] have the right to park on the avenue and in the yard for as long as their parking does not prevent the right of access which has been created or infringe the ancillary right of manoeuvre in order to gain access to the garage which has been mentioned.
“In that connection, we have been shown a scaled drawing of the Defendants’ property showing three parking spaces.
“On questioning the Plaintiff [Mrs Morgan] in that connection, it seems to have been accepted that if cars were parked on those designated spaces, there would be no impeding of the right of access or ancillary right which have been described.
“However, the area is extremely tight, and any lack of care in parking on those spaces, particularly the one adjacent to the extension to the cottage, would seem to us to be liable to make the turning area necessary for convenient access to the garage very difficult to manoeuvre.
“We do not consider that we can come up with any answer to this. It behoves the parties to act in a way which is ‘civiliter’.
“The Defendants must procure, in so far as lies within their powers, that their parking does not infringe the Plaintiff’s rights. If it does, then it will be open to the Plaintiff to take further proceedings either for injunctive relief or damages.
“Equally, the obligation to act civiliter applies to the Plaintiff as well – and the right course, where the right of access is impeded by such parking, is obviously to make civil contact with the Defendants requesting that the vehicle in question be moved so as to permit the necessary access.”
The Court added: “‘Live and let live’ will be particularly difficult given all that has passed so far, but it is essential that the parties make every effort to wipe the slate clean and start afresh with a new relationship; they live too close by each other for anything else.”
It concluded: “In summary, having considered all the arguments, we find that neither the walled patio nor the parking of vehicles by the Defendants constitute an unlawful encroachment onto the right of way of the Plaintiff."
They added: “We urge both parties to make a new start to their relationship, however difficult that may be, and to cooperate with each other to ensure access to the properties and the field is manageable by all.”
During proceedings, the Defendants did admit breaches of right of way during building works on the cottage between 2016 and 2018
For that, they were ordered to pay damages of £1,000 to Mrs Morgan.
Comments
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.