Latest news with #ChristelNaish
Telegraph
04-07-2025
- Telegraph
My neighbourly dispute over a tree ended up with tears (and a poem)
Good fences make good neighbours, so they say – as long as they are in exactly the right place. If not: costly carnage in court. This week saw yet another utterly preposterous boundary dispute end in a rout when an octogenarian pensioner lost her seven-year £280,000 legal battle over a strip of land between their houses that was just inches wide. Christel Naish, 81, had complained that Dr Jyotibala Patel's garden tap and pipe were 'trespassing' on her property in Ilford, east London, and after several rounds of litigation, the case ended up in the High Court. At the High Court, senior judge Sir Anthony Mann didn't mince his words, criticising both the parties for the 'ridiculous' row after hearing that the tap has now been removed by Dr Patel. 'Hundreds of thousands of pounds about a tap and a pipe that doesn't matter – this brings litigation into disrepute,' he said. 'Why does it matter, for goodness' sake, where the boundary lies?' Why indeed? The answer would appear to be; it just does. In May, a judge at Central London county court was exasperated enough to ask both sets of lawyers in a boundary dispute over guttering: 'How much are the parties pouring down the drain on this?' Around £150,000 as it happened – an insane amount to most of us, but then logic plays no role in such litigation. In March last year, a father of five was jailed for contempt and faced a £475,000 legal bill in a row over a garden fence in Robertsbridge, near Hastings, and was told by a judge he will have to sell his family home to meet the costs. And in November, an argument over a village brook in Thrussington, Leicestershire saw neighbours run up a £300,000 bill which is now water under a bridge. But not all disputes end up in court. Sometimes they are played out in person. I have in my time known a shared hedge to cause a complete breakdown in relations because one side felt the ivy was an eyesore and the other that it was a haven for wildlife. A number of years ago, we arranged to have the towering tree at the end of our garden pollarded so we could have at least a little sunlight. As the tree surgeon climbed up, he joked: 'I can guarantee that within half an hour the neighbours from two doors down on each side will be up in arms.' At least I thought he was joking, until someone started hammering on the door 15 minutes later. A woman I'd never seen before was standing there in tears – accusing me of killing the London plane tree, but stormed off just as I was about to reply. After that, another woman shouted from her garden (yes, two doors along) that we were ruining her view and a third came to the door to officiously announce she was calling the council to check the preservation status – even though I assured her we had already been given the go-ahead by officialdom. Finally, just as the doorbell stopped ringing; a single sheet of paper floated down from the letterbox. It was the Gerard Manley Hopkins poem Binsey Poplars, a lament dedicated to a row of cherished trees, cut down to the detriment of landscape and locals alike. And just in case the metaphor was lost on me, the line 'All felled, felled, are all felled' had been vigorously underlined. I have to say I was grudgingly impressed. Fast forward a few years, every last branch and leaf has grown back on our London plane. But what was that I saw late last year in that crying neighbour's garden? A tree surgeon hacking back her own copper beech. I saw her. She saw me. That look was enough. And best of all, it didn't cost a penny.
Telegraph
03-07-2025
- Telegraph
Pensioner loses £280,000 planning row over inches of land
A judge has lambasted a pensioner's 'ridiculous' planning row over a few inches of space which landed her with a £280k bill. High Court judge Sir Anthony Mann told 81-year-old Christel Naish that her complaints over a tap and pipe 'don't matter' and added the row was a 'ridiculous piece of litigation'. Ms Naish sparked the feud seven years ago after claiming her neighbour's garden tap and pipe were 'trespassing' on the 'few inches' that separate their homes. Last year, a judge at the Mayors and City County Court, found neighbours Dr Jyotibala Patel and her husband innocent. However, Ms Naish escalated the row by launching an appeal – which was thrown out this week. During the appeal hearing, Sir Anthony Mann said: 'Hundreds of thousands of pounds about a tap and a pipe that doesn't matter. 'You don't care about the pipe and the tap, so why does it matter, for goodness' sake, where the boundary lies? It seems to me to be a ridiculous piece of litigation – on both sides, no doubt.' Sir Anthony ordered the pensioner to pay 65pc of her neighbour's legal fees, roughly £100k, which adds to the six-figure bill for her own costs. The appeal process added another £30k to her charge, the court heard. Dr Patel said she was 'terrorised' by the 'petty and vindictive' complaints which forced her and her husband to sue. The gap between Ms Naish and Dr Patel's houses in Ilford, east London, is too narrow for a person to comfortably fit through. Ms Naish originally lived in the home as a teenager with her parents, before moving back permanently in 2001 after the death of her father. Dr Patel and her husband bought the property next door 12 years later for £450k. The couple's barrister, Paul Wilmshurst, told the judge the dispute began after Ms Naish complained about the tap and pipe. He said the couple felt forced to sue after the 'blight' on their home's value caused by the dispute.
Daily Mail
03-07-2025
- Daily Mail
Pensioner, 81, loses 'ridiculous' £280,000 neighbour row over 'inches' of land... after seven years of fighting
A pensioner has lost a 'ridiculous' £280,000 legal battle against her neighbour over a just a few inches of land. Christel Naish, 81, and her doctor neighbour Jyotibala Patel had been fighting over an inches-wide strip between their houses too narrow for a person to comfortably walk down. Ms Naish complained that Dr Patel's garden tap and pipe were 'trespassing' on her property in Ilford, east London and after several rounds of litigation, brought her case before the High Court. Senior Judge Sir Anthony Mann said in the High Court that the offending strip of land was 'not worth arguing about' and criticised Ms Naish for 'bringing litigation in to disrepute'. The decision marks the end of an seven-year legal battle started by Ms Naish after she returned to the property in 2001 following her father's death. It comes after a trial at Mayors and City County Court in central London, which last year ruled in Dr Patel's favour on the boundary issue - landing Ms Naish with more than £200,000 in lawyers' bills. Following the trial, the pensioner had been told to pay for 65 per cent of her neighbours' costs - amounting to about £100,000 - on top of the six-figure sum she ran up herself. The appeal is costing more than £30,000, the High Court heard, and Ms Naish's lawyers say there could be 'another £200,000' spent on a second trial if she succeeds. At the High Court, Sir Anthony criticised the parties for the 'ridiculous' row after hearing the tap and pipe issue which began the dispute did not even matter any more - with the tap having now been removed by Dr Patel. He told Ms Naish's lawyers: 'Hundreds of thousands of pounds about a tap and a pipe that doesn't matter - this brings litigation into disrepute. 'You don't care about the pipe and the tap, so why does it matter, for goodness' sake, where the boundary lies? It seems to me to be a ridiculous piece of litigation - on both sides, no doubt.' The court heard Ms Naish first moved into her semi-detached house as a teenager with her parents and, although she moved out, frequently returned as she worked from there in the family's tarmac business. She eventually moved back permanently after the death of her father in 2001, with Dr Patel and husband Vasos Vassili buying the house next door for £450,000 in 2013. The couple's barrister Paul Wilmshurst told the judge the dispute began due to Ms Naish complaining a tap and pipe outside their house trespassed on her land. He accused her of 'terrorising' the couple with 'petty and vindictive' complaints and that they felt forced to sue due to the 'blight' on their home's value caused by the unresolved row. At the county court, they said they owned the tiny gap between the houses created when previous occupants built an extension on a much wider gap in 1983. They insisted the boundary between the two properties was the flank wall of Ms Naish's house and not the edge of her guttering hanging above, as she claimed. After hearing the trial in 2023, Judge Stephen Hellman last year found for Dr Patel and Mr Vassili, ruling that Ms Naish's flank wall was the boundary and the couple owned the gap between the houses. However, he found against them on Ms Naish's counter-claim, under which she sought damages for damp ingress into her conservatory caused by the couple having installed decking above the level of her damp-proof course. The judge found that, although the damp problem was already in existence, the installation of the decking screed was a 20 per cent contribution to it and he awarded Ms Naish £1,226 in damages. But because he had found against her on who owns the gap between the houses, he ordered she pay 65 per cent of her neighbours' lawyers' bills. Concluding his judgment, he said: 'Now that the parties have the benefit of a judgment on the various issues that have been troubling them, I hope that tensions will subside and that they will be able to live together as good neighbours.' Ms Naish has continued to fight and took her case to the High Court for an appeal last week, with judge Sir Anthony asking why the neighbours were pressing on and demanding of Ms Naish's barrister David Mayall: 'What is the point of this litigation?' Mr Mayall replied: 'To be frank, two things - costs and the damp issue.' Dr Patel's barrister Mr Wilmshurst said the couple felt they had to fight to protect the value of their home. He added: 'It's because for many years the appellant has been making allegations about the trespassing nature of the [tap and pipe], thereby making it impossible for them to sell their house.' For Ms Naish, Mr Mayall argued that Judge Hellman's reasoning in finding that the boundary was the flank wall was 'fatally flawed' and should be overturned - although he noted a second trial in the event of a successful appeal would cost the parties 'another £200,000'. Mr Mayall said any 'reasonable purchaser' looking at the houses when they were first built and conveyed in the 1950s would have assumed that the boundary was the edge of Ms Naish's guttering, giving her a few inches of extra land. He added: 'The only proper conclusion that he could have come to when construing the original conveyance was that the boundary ran along the outermost part of the house as constructed, including the eaves, guttering and foundations.' For Dr Patel, who appeared in court, and Mr Vassili, who watched via a video link, Mr Wilmshurst said the appeal was a challenge to findings the judge was entitled to make on the evidence. He said: 'Overall, the judge did not overlook the contention of the appellant as to guttering, eaves and foundations - he considered it directly, evaluated it, and rejected it as being material to where the boundary was. 'The judge correctly held that the legal boundary was shown by the conveyance plans as running along the flank wall of [Ms Naish's house], not the outermost projection.' On the issue of what contribution to Ms Naish's damp her neighbours' decking screed caused, he added: 'There is no basis on which it can be properly said that the judge was wrong to find the concrete screed was only responsible for 20 per cent of the damp problems. 'The judge also carried out a site view and was in the best position to form an assessment of the evidence.' After a day in court, Sir Anthony reserved judgement on the appeal.
The Sun
02-07-2025
- The Sun
Bitter neighbours in ‘ridiculous' 7-year row over garden tap between homes as pensioner forks out £280k for court battle
BITTER neighbours are in a "ridiculous" seven-year row over a tiny gap between their homes, with a pensioner forking out £280,000 for the court battle. Christel Naish and her doctor neighbour Jyotibala Patel have been fighting a court war over an inches-wide strip between their houses that is too narrow for someone to comfortably walk down. 3 3 Ms Naish complained that Dr Patel's garden tap and pipe were "trespassing" on her property in Ilford, east London, sparking an expensive legal battle. Last year, after a trial at Mayors and City County Court, Ms Naish was left with more than £200,000 in lawers' bills for the case when the judge ruled in Dr Patel's favour. But Ms Naish fought on - in what High Court judge Sir Anthony Mann branded a "ridiculous" dispute - only to have her case thrown out this week at the High Court. Rejecting her appeal, Sir Anthony said the disputed strip of land between the houses is "dead space, and one would have thought it was not worth arguing about." The court heard Ms Naish first moved in as a teenager with her parents and, although she moved out, frequently returned as she worked from there in the family's tarmac business. She eventually moved back permanently after the death of her father in 2001, with Dr Patel and husband Vasos Vassili buying the house next door for £450,000 in 2013. The couple's barrister, Paul Wilmshurst, told the judge that the dispute began due to Ms Naish repeatedly complaining that a tap and pipe outside their house trespassed on her land. Due to her " terrorising" them with her "petty and vindictive" complaints, they felt forced to sue due to the "blight" on the property's value caused by the unresolved row, he said. At the county court, they claimed the tiny gap between the houses, created when the previous owners of their home built an extension on a previously much wider gap in 1983, was theirs. They insisted that the boundary between the two properties was the flank wall of Ms Naish's house and not the edge of her guttering hanging above, as she claimed. Your kids are breaking law if they kick their ball over neighbour's fence, High Court rules after couple sued next door After hearing the trial, Judge Hellman found for Dr Patel and Mr Vassili, ruling that Ms Naish's flank wall was the boundary and meaning they own the gap between the houses. However, he found against them on Ms Naish's counterclaim, under which she sought damages for damp ingress into her conservatory caused by them having installed decking above the level of her damp proof course. The judge found that, although the damp problem was already in existence, the installation of the decking screed was a 20% contribution to it, and awarded Ms Naish £1,226 damages. However, because he had found against her on who owns the gap between the houses, he ordered that she pay 65% of her neighbours' lawyers' bills - amounting to about £100,000 of an approximate £150,000 bill - on top of a similar six-figure sum she ran up herself. Concluding his judgment, he said: "Now that the parties have the benefit of a judgment on the various issues that have been troubling them, I hope that tensions will subside and that they will be able to live together as good neighbours." However, Ms Naish continued to fight and took her case to the High Court in May, which Sir Anthony blasted as bringing "litigation into disrepute" since Ms Naish no longer has any problems with the tap and pipe, meaning the row is over "dead space." The court heard the legal costs of the appeal process itself would add more than £30,000 to the total cost of the case. "Hundreds of thousands of pounds about a tap and a pipe that doesn't matter," Sir Anthony told Ms Naish's lawyers during the appeal hearing. "You don't care about the pipe and the tap, so why does it matter, for goodness' sake, where the boundary lies? "It seems to me to be a ridiculous piece of litigation - on both sides, no doubt." Appealing, Ms Naish's lawyers argued that Judge Hellman had considered the issue of where the boundary lies in the wrong way, without taking notice of the fact that both houses were already built when crucial conveyancing documents were drawn up. Hilarious moment bumbling cops struggle to break down door as mocking neighbours shout 'go on… knock it!' The judge should have looked at the houses and decided that a reasonable buyer would expect the boundary to lie a few inches past Ms Naish's wall so that her overhanging guttering was over the land. Giving judgment, Sir Anthony said he disagreed with Judge Hellman's reasoning, but had come to the same decision - that the boundary ran along the line of Ms Naish's house and so the land belongs to her neighbours. "I think that a purchaser standing with the plan in his/her hand and looking at the position on the ground is unlikely to look much beyond the obvious flank wall of the house. That would be an obvious boundary feature which fitted with the plan. "I do not think the parties would cast their eyes upwards and see the guttering and re-shape their view of the boundary to the plane of the exterior face of the guttering. That does not seem particularly plausible. "Nor do I think that the purchaser would be aware that foundations protruded beyond the flank wall - if indeed they do, there was no actual evidence of that, only a bit of speculation on the probabilities. "So the natural view of the boundary at this point would be the flank wall. It is the obvious topographical feature which bears on the question. "In my view, the judge reached the right conclusion on the position of the boundary, albeit my reasoning differs from his." The judge rejected Ms Naish's appeal and also dismissed her challenge to the decision on the damp issue, under which she was claiming extra damages. "The judge's conclusion was that 20% of the damp problem was attributable to the claimants' decking and he was entitled to reach that view," he said. "It is particularly undesirable that this already unfortunate litigation should be cluttered up by such unworthy points taken on this appeal." Ms Naish's appeal against the amount of her neighbours' costs she must pay will be decided at a later date.
Times
02-07-2025
- Times
‘Ridiculous' row with neighbour over a tiny gap costs pensioner £280,000
A pensioner has lost a £280,000 court battle with her neighbour over 'inches' of 'dead space' between their homes in a dispute the judge branded 'ridiculous'. Sitting in the High Court, Sir Anthony Mann said the tiny strip of land that separated Christel Naish's property from her doctor neighbour was 'not worth arguing about'. Naish, 81, pursued a seven-year claim against Jyotibala Patel in which she complained that the doctor's garden tap and pipe were 'trespassing' on what she alleged was her property. The costly boundary dispute was fought over a piece of land that the court heard was only just large enough for a person to squeeze into sideways between the houses in east London. Christel Naish got into a row with her neighbours over a tiny strip of land between their homes CHAMPION NEWS SERVICE Each neighbour claimed that they owned the strip — and at an earlier hearing at the Mayor's and City county court last year, a judge ruled in favour of the doctor and her husband, Vasos Vassili. Naish appealed to the High Court, where Mann described the legal row as 'ridiculous' before dismissing her claim. The judge heard that Naish first moved into the semi-detached property as a teenager with her parents. While Naish had moved out as an adult, she was said to have frequently returned while working for the family's surfacing business. After her father died in 2001, Naish moved back permanently. Patel and her husband bought the house next door for £450,000 in 2013. The couple's barrister, Paul Wilmshurst, told the judge the dispute began when Naish repeatedly complained that a tap and pipe outside their house trespassed on her land. Jyotibala Patel also claimed she owned the strip of land CHAMPION NEWS SERVICE Wilmhurst said that the doctor and her husband were compelled to sue their neighbour, taking the view that they would never be able to sell their property while 'the blight' of the unresolved row continued. He explained that the gap between the houses was shaped when the property's previous owners built an extension on what was a much wider gap in 1983. The couple insisted the boundary between the two properties was the flank wall of Naish's house and not the edge of her guttering that hung above, as she claimed. After the county court judge backed the couple's boundary claim, Naish appealed and Mann criticised her for bringing 'litigation into disrepute'. The judge pointed out that Naish no longer had any problems with the tap and pipe, meaning the row was therefore over 'dead space'. The court heard the legal costs of the appeal process itself would add more than £30,000 to the total cost of the case. 'Hundreds of thousands of pounds about a tap and a pipe that doesn't matter,' Mann said to Naish's lawyers during the appeal hearing. 'You don't care about the pipe and the tap, so why does it matter, for goodness' sake, where the boundary lies? It seems to me to be a ridiculous piece of litigation — on both sides, no doubt.' The judge told Naish's legal team it was 'particularly undesirable that this already unfortunate litigation should be cluttered up by such unworthy points taken on this appeal'. Naish has appealed against a ruling on the amount of her neighbours' legal costs she must pay. A hearing will be set for a later date.
