A protracted 14-year dispute between neighbors over a six-inch strip of garden land has culminated in a couple facing a £130,000 court bill. Philip and Denise New are contending with this significant sum following a legal battle with their neighbors, Steve and Karen Gibson, concerning a shared fence between their properties in Essex.
The case escalated to the High Court in London, where the News challenged a £9,500 damages award, which, combined with £120,000 in legal costs, amounts to their current financial obligation.
The disagreement originated in 2012 when Philip New replaced fence panels along the boundary. The Gibsons contended that the fence was misplaced and encroached on their property, asserting the correct boundary should be further into the News' garden. The News maintained that the fence had occupied its position for over 15 years and that they had merely replaced existing panels on original posts.
Seeking resolution, the couples initially agreed to an out-of-court settlement and engaged an independent surveyor in 2015 to demarcate the boundary. However, the News disagreed with the surveyor's findings and obtained a second opinion. The dispute intensified when the Gibsons initiated legal action in 2018.
In 2021, a judge ruled in favor of the Gibsons, upholding the boundary line identified by the initial surveyor. Subsequent appeals by the News were unsuccessful. The case then proceeded to Southend County Court, where Judge Duddridge was tasked with determining compensation for the Gibsons due to the fence's encroachment.
During proceedings, evidence emerged that Philip New had written and published two derogatory songs on Facebook and YouTube, discovered by the Gibsons' children in late 2020. One song, titled 'Neighbours,' contained lyrics with advice such as "Throw s*** at their windows, s*** at the door/ Call him a w*/call her a w*/p*** in their garden, till it's quite late/When they're asleep, blow up their gate." Another song, 'Magic Garden,' was described by the judge as depicting someone with a disability who feigned pain in public but was pain-free in their garden, suggesting benefits fraud.
Mr. Gibson stated that these songs were deeply upsetting, hurtful, and hateful, particularly in light of his own rare bone disorder. Judge Duddridge rejected Mr. New's assertion that the songs were satirical and not directed at the Gibsons, acknowledging they were unpleasant and personal. While accepting Mr. New did not intend the lyrics in 'Neighbours' to be acted upon and did not send the songs directly to the Gibsons, the judge noted that posting them on public social media could foreseeably lead to ridicule and embarrassment, especially given Mr. Gibson's condition.
The court also addressed the removal of an ornamental squirrel from a post between the properties. Mr. Gibson claimed the post, which had been built by his parents-in-law, held significant sentimental value, as did the squirrel which he had purchased as a gift. Judge Duddridge dismissed the News' claim that they removed the post and squirrel due to danger, expressing doubt about their genuine belief that the post was theirs until after its removal. The judge also rejected the Gibsons' claim of losing a substantial part of their garden, ruling that while the encroachment hindered their landscaping plans, it did not deprive them of a large area's use. Despite the small land area affected, the judge affirmed the Gibsons' entitlement to compensation for the inconvenience and distress caused by the nearly seven-year encroachment.
During the High Court hearing, the News' barrister argued that the £9,500 damages award was excessive and would leave his clients with a "ruinous" legal bill. He also contested the damages related to the squirrel post, asserting it belonged to the News as it was on their side of the boundary. The Gibsons' barrister countered that the damages were justified for the extended period of encroachment.
Mr. Justice Thompsell reserved his judgment. If the damages award is reduced to below £3,000, it could significantly impact the allocation of the considerable legal costs.