fbpx

Hedge Cutting Proves Costly

1st February 2019 By Arman Khosravi

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 Explores Alleged 'Grave Risk' in Child Abduction Case

28th March, 2024 By

Cross-jurisdictional disputes surrounding child custody can be complex but, in cutting through the complexities, the courts will always focus on the welfare of the children involved, as was evidenced in a High Court case centred on a child abduction. A father wrongfully removed his 5-year-old child from Lithuania during an agreed contact session and took him back to the UK. Prior to this abduction, a series of contested proceedings related to the child's custody had already taken place in the Lithuanian courts. The father had applied to have the child returned...

Tenant Succeeds in Reducing Service Charges

26th March, 2024 By

A case recently decided by the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) serves as a reminder to tenants to check the terms of their leases and to monitor the service charges they are asked to pay. The tenant of a ground-floor flat sought a determination of liability to pay service charges under Section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, in respect of the 2017-2022 service charge years. He challenged various charges, on grounds that they was no evidence that they had been incurred or that they had not reasonably been incurred. Although...

Risk Passing on Exchange of Contracts

20th March, 2024 By Arman Khosravi

Risk Passing on Exchange of Contracts   Between Exchange and Completion (where the property is freehold):- It is generally the responsibility of the seller to take care of the property and to keep it insured against damage. The buyer also has a responsibility to insure the property from the exchange of contracts because of “Risk Passing”. There is no obligation on the seller to maintain buildings insurance once exchange has taken place.  It is therefore very important that buildings insurance for the property is in place before you proceed to exchange...

Court of Appeal Overturns Will Dispute Ruling

20th March, 2024 By

Unfortunately, will disputes can sometimes be drawn out long after the passing of the person who bequeathed their assets. This was so in a contentious probate battle which progressed to the Court of Appeal after a High Court judgment was challenged. The crux of the matter was a 2015 will made by a woman prior to her death at the age of 85. In that will, the woman bequeathed her home – her largest asset – to her only daughter. The daughter and the woman's three sons were to share...