Hedge Cutting Proves Costly

1st February 2019 By Alireza Nurbakhsh

You might think that where the boundaries of property lie should be clear, but boundary disputes are a fruitful source of argument in the courts.

A recent case arose when, between contracts being exchanged on a property and the completion of its purchase, a row of hedging plants and trees that lay between the property and the neighbouring house had been cut back by the neighbours to the level of the earth bank on which they grew. The buyer claimed the plants were on her property, whilst the neighbours disputed this and also claimed the work had been done before she acquired a legal interest in it. The buyer claimed damages of £100,000 and sought an injunction against the neighbours.

The boundary was marked in only vague form in a conveyance in 1928 and that meant in turn that the judge in the County Court had to infer its location from the best evidence available. This involved looking at the auction particulars from 1928, letters written in the 1930s and photographs from the 1940s, and considering the likelihood that a stock-proof fence would have been needed to separate the properties.

The judge found in favour of the neighbours on the boundary issue and dismissed the claim. As regards when the plants were removed, he ruled that the works were done after the buyer had acquired the property and so would have constituted an actionable wrong had the decision gone the other way. He assessed the damages that would have been payable had the buyer succeeded in her claim at £22,500, but held that an injunction was unnecessary.

As is not uncommon, the decision of the lower court, which was reached after a trial lasting six days, was appealed on the question of where the boundary lay. The High Court reviewed the evidence again and, somewhat unusually, overturned the ruling, awarding the buyer the £22,500 calculated at the first hearing. It is fair to say that that sum will be dwarfed by the legal costs and that may or may not make another appeal more likely.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Court Visit Required to Give Clarity to Will

18th February, 2019 By Alireza Nurbakhsh

Many wills contain clauses which alter the distribution of assets in the event of changing circumstances, such as the death of one of the beneficiaries under the will before the person making it. When drafting such clauses, it is essential that they are absolutely clear to prevent confusion, as a recent case shows. It involved the will of a woman who died in 1973, leaving her estate in trust for her son for his lifetime and then to his children if he had any. If he did not, the estate was...

Fraud Victim Sacrificed His Home by Delay in Seeking Legal Advice

15th February, 2019 By Alireza Nurbakhsh

If you have a legitimate legal complaint, any delay in consulting a solicitor is highly likely to benefit the wrongdoer. A man whose home was taken from him by fraud, but who delayed over 20 years before taking legal action, found that out to his cost. The man had been dispossessed of his home in 1989 by a fraudster who made use of forged documents in successfully having the property registered in his name. The fraudster subsequently transferred the house to his son, who was aware of the fraud. The...

UK Fairness Test Mitigates Italian Pre-Nuptial Agreement

12th February, 2019 By Alireza Nurbakhsh

The law relating to the division of family assets on divorce varies widely across the world and the UK is generally regarded as one of the fairer jurisdictions for such financial arrangements in that the assets tend to be divided more equally than in many other countries. Accordingly, where a family with an international lifestyle breaks up and there is a reasonably strong connection to the UK, it is often chosen as the jurisdiction of preference for divorce proceedings by a spouse who might be disadvantaged if the proceedings are...

What is the Tax Status of Compensation for Financial Product Mis-Selling?

7th February, 2019 By Alireza Nurbakhsh

Is compensation paid to individuals whose businesses have failed due to mis-selling of financial products subject to Income Tax? In a decision that will disappoint many victims of bank wrongdoing, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) has answered that question in the affirmative. The case concerned seven brothers whose property letting business had been mis-sold interest rate hedging products (IRHPs). The business subsequently failed, allegedly due to the high interest rates imposed by the IRHPs. After they lodged complaints, the relevant bank paid them basic compensation totalling almost £360,000. HM Revenue and...