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

Informal Agreement Leads Family to Court of Appeal

22nd August, 2019 By Alireza Nurbakhsh

Disputes within families are very common indeed and one of the issues the courts see over and over again is where there is a family 'understanding' that ends in a disagreement. In a recent case, the result of one such dispute is that an 82-year-old woman will be forced to sell the home she has lived in for decades. Many such cases involve farming businesses. These traditionally pass down from generation to generation, and often one child will work on the farm for many years with the others moving away. It...

Tax Investigations – Judge Authorises Disclosure of Credit Card Bills

19th August, 2019 By Alireza Nurbakhsh

To what extent are the tax authorities entitled to delve into what would otherwise be your private financial information? The High Court tackled that issue in authorising disclosure of a wealthy businessman's credit card statements to HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) as part of a cross-border investigation into his tax affairs. The Swedish businessman claimed not to be subject to Swedish tax on the basis that he had emigrated to Switzerland. The Swedish tax authorities considered that he remained ordinarily resident in Sweden and requested HMRC's assistance in investigating the...

Court Returns Two-Year-Old to Land of Birth When Parents' Marriage Collapses

16th August, 2019 By Alireza Nurbakhsh

For a UK court to have jurisdiction over a family law case, it is necessary to show that at least one party to it has habitual residence in the UK. In a recent case, an Israeli woman divorcing her Israeli husband sought a declaration that their two-year-old daughter was habitually resident in the UK so that the UK Family Court could deal with the hearings regarding the child's welfare. The Court refused the application and accepted that the child should be removed to Israel in accordance with the father's wishes....

Be Careful What You Post

13th August, 2019 By Alireza Nurbakhsh

Although the final result was not financial ruin for the defendant, a recent case illustrates how unwise it is to vent one's spleen on social media. It involved a firm of solicitors that had been involved in the sale of 'off plan' properties in Cyprus. This led an unhappy purchaser to make a post on Facebook and in a webinar that made allegations of mis-selling against the firm and others related to it. The result was a claim for damages for defamation. In hearing the claim, the High Court had firstly...