A company owning a Grouville home secured orders stopping its neighbours’ renovation works after failing to disclose key information and misleading the Bailiff, the Royal Court has found.

The court lifted injunctions obtained by Fosse Astelle Family Holdings Limited amid a dispute over rooflights, replacement windows and a hayloft door at a neighbouring listed property.

The case also featured a disputed late-night confrontation over scaffolding which brought police to the scene, and a compensation claim exceeding £51,000.

The company owns Terre Bonne in La Rue Es Philippes through its shareholders and directors, Mr and Mrs Lingard. Jack and Corinne White own neighbouring La Perronelle.

Both properties are among five listed houses in the six-home hamlet of Ville Es Philippes.

The Whites’ purchase contract permits a “reasonable number” of “small” heritage-style rooflights – without defining either term.

The company obtained injunctions in February through an application made without the Whites being present or represented.

Harry Lingard argued that the proposed rooflights would “destroy the visual dominance of the large, steep roof”.

However, the court found a “serious failure” to provide full and frank disclosure, meaning “the Bailiff was misled when granting the injunction”.

The application omitted the Whites’ offer to delay works to allow their neighbour to seek an injunction. It also failed to explain clearly that works had begun months earlier, or disclose a confrontation over scaffolding.

The judgment recorded a disputed account that Mr and Mrs Lingard, their son and other men tried to remove scaffolding at around 9pm “under cover of darkness”.

That account included allegations that Mrs Lingard punched Mr White’s brother, the building contractor, and threatened to kill him. The company’s advocate disputed the account, but the court found that the altercation and police attendance should have been disclosed.

The court also criticised selective quotation from heritage correspondence. An email describing amended roof proposals as “a positive and welcome response” appeared in supporting documents but was not highlighted in the affidavit.

The injunctions were lifted on 16 June, with the judgment explaining the decision.

The Whites claimed £51,573.05 for losses including additional accommodation and contractor costs. The company disputed the claim.

No damages were awarded in this judgment, with the court directing a further hearing to consider the issue.