Latest news with #JyotibalaPatel
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.
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Yahoo
Neighbours' ‘ridiculous' 7-year garden row racks up £250,000 in legal bills
A seven-year row between neighbours has been slammed as 'ridiculous' by a senior judge. The bitter court fight - which has now racked up £250,000 in legal bills - concerns a strip between two houses in east London. Christel Naish, 81, has argued that her doctor neighbour Jyotibala Patel's garden tap and pipe were 'trespassing' on her property. Following a costly boundary dispute, a judge at Mayors and Cirt County Court last year ruled in Dr Patel's favour. But she is now fighting on at the High Court, despite being told that the case could end up costing about £500,000 if she wins – more than Dr Patel paid for her house. The only person who listens to both sides of an argument is the next door neighbour. — Joey Mate™️ 🇦🇺 🇳🇱 (@Joey1800callme) February 17, 2025 According to the Metro, the pensioner had been left having to fork out for 65% of her neighbours' costs, amounting to around £100,000, on top of the six-figure sum she ran up herself. However, the appeal is costing more than £30,000, the High Court heard, and her lawyers say it could result in 'another £200,000' being blown on a second trial if she succeeds. Senior judge Sir Anthony Mann said of the case this week: '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.' Dr Patel and her husband, Vasos Vassili, bought the house next door to Ms Naish 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. Recommended reading: Sunday Times Rich List revealed for 2025 - Who are the wealthiest people in UK? Nationwide issues fresh update on free £100 loyalty bonus for customers Major UK fashion brand to cut 1700 jobs despite having 'best days ahead' 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. Judge Stephen Hellman last year found for Dr Patel and Mr Vassili, ruling that Ms Naish's flank wall was the boundary and therefore, they own the gap between the houses. 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.'
The Sun
15-05-2025
- The Sun
Neighbours locked in ‘ridiculous' 7-year war over garden HOSE on tiny strip of land between 2 homes
A £250,000 seven-year neighbours' row over a few inches of land sparked by a doctor's garden tap has been blasted as "ridiculous" by a top judge. Pensioner Christel Naish and her doctor neighbour Jyotibala Patel have been fighting a bitter court war over an inches-wide strip between their houses that is too narrow for someone to comfortably walk down. 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, Christel was left with more than £200,000 in lawers' bills for the case when the judge ruled in Jyotibala's favour. But Ms Naish, 81, is now fighting on, despite being told that the case could end up costing about £500,000 if she wins. After the trial, Christel had to pay around 65% of her neighbours' costs, totalling around £100,000 on top of the six-figure sum she ran up herself. However the appeal itself is costing more than £30,000, the High Court heard, and her lawyers say it could result in "another £200,000" being blown on a second trial if she succeeds. At the High Court, senior judge Sir Anthony Mann blasted the parties for the "ridiculous" row after hearing that 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. Senior judge Mann said: "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 in Chadacre Avenue as a teenager with her parents and, although she moved out, frequently returned as she worked there in the family's tarmac business. Moment 'UK's worst neighbour' terrorises couple in 18-month tirade of foul-mouthed abuse caught on doorbell camera 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. 3 But 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 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 per cent of her neighbours' lawyers' bills, amounting to about £100,000, on top of her own costs. 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 has continued to fight and took her case to the High Court for an appeal last week, with judge Sir Anthony Mann asking why the neighbours are pressing on and demanding of Ms Naish's barrister David Mayall: "What is the point of this litigation?" He replied: "To be frank, two things: costs and the damp issue," with Dr Patel's barrister Mr Wilmshurst adding that they feel they have to fight to protect the value of their home. "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," he said. 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 noting a second trial in the event of a successful appeal would cost the parties "another £200,000." He 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 extra land. "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," he said. "He most certainly could not have concluded that a reasonable person would have understood that the boundary was in such a place as to mean that part of the dwelling as constructed - the eaves, guttering and foundations - were immediately trespassing on the neighbouring land." He added: "They insisted that's where the line lay. We said it certainly doesn't lie there and we have been ordered to pay £100,000 in costs for the proceedings below. "What we say is a reasonable purchaser would say, 'I own the land over which these gutters lie.' We say there was a fence running along, which was the distance away from the wall that the flank wall of [Dr Patel's extension] is now." But 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. "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," he said. "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. "The appellant does not suggest that there is rule of law that means that a boundary must be synonymous with the eaves, guttering or foundations. "As shown in this case, the court received expert evidence from an experienced land surveyor that such a state of affairs is not unusual. "This was a question of fact in this case for the judge to determine." 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% 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 judgment on the appeal.
