Latest news with #VasosVassili
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.
The Independent
02-07-2025
- The Independent
Pensioner's ‘ridiculous' seven-year £280k court fight with neighbour over tiny strip of land
An angry pensioner has lost a "ridiculous" £280,000 fight with her doctor neighbour over "inches" of "dead space" separating their homes, with a judge slamming the tiny strip as "not worth arguing about". Christel Naish, 81, and her neighbour, Dr Jyotibala Patel, fought a bitter seven-year court war after Ms Naish complained that Dr Patel's garden tap and pipe were "trespassing" on the tiny strip of land between their houses, which she claimed she owned. The dispute escalated into a costly boundary dispute, with the neighbours arguing over a "few inches" of "dead space" - barely enough for a person to squeeze into sideways - between their houses in Ilford, east London. They each laid claim to the strip, with a judge at Mayors and City County Court finding for Dr Patel and her husband, Vasos Vassili, last year. 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 into the semi in Chadacre Avenue 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. They felt forced to sue their neighbour, believing they couldn't sell their property due to "the blight" on it from 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. 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. 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.
Yahoo
02-07-2025
- Yahoo
Pensioner's ‘ridiculous' seven-year £280k court fight with neighbour over tiny strip of land
An angry pensioner has lost a "ridiculous" £280,000 fight with her doctor neighbour over "inches" of "dead space" separating their homes, with a judge slamming the tiny strip as "not worth arguing about". Christel Naish, 81, and her neighbour, Dr Jyotibala Patel, fought a bitter seven-year court war after Ms Naish complained that Dr Patel's garden tap and pipe were "trespassing" on the tiny strip of land between their houses, which she claimed she owned. The dispute escalated into a costly boundary dispute, with the neighbours arguing over a "few inches" of "dead space" - barely enough for a person to squeeze into sideways - between their houses in Ilford, east London. They each laid claim to the strip, with a judge at Mayors and City County Court finding for Dr Patel and her husband, Vasos Vassili, last year. 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 into the semi in Chadacre Avenue 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. They felt forced to sue their neighbour, believing they couldn't sell their property due to "the blight" on it from 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. 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. 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.
Telegraph
15-05-2025
- Telegraph
Neighbours' seven-year row over garden tap is ‘ridiculous', says judge
A neighbourly row over a garden tap has racked up £250,000 in legal bills. The dispute between two neighbours in Ilford, east London, has lasted for seven years and has now gone before the High Court. A judge, presiding over the case this week, said: 'Hundreds of thousands of pounds about a tap and a pipe that doesn't matter – this brings litigation into disrepute.' The feud started when pensioner Christel Naish complained to her doctor neighbour, Jyotibala Patel, about a tap and pipe outside her house in Chadacre Avenue, the court heard. She said the tap and pipe were 'trespassing' on a narrow strip of land between their homes, which she claimed partly belonged to her. Ms Naish is accused of 'terrorising' Dr Patel and her husband Vasos Vassili with 'petty and vindictive' complaints about the matter. The couple's barrister, Paul Wilmshurst, told the court they felt forced to sue because of the 'blight' on the property's value caused by the unresolved row. '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. In a trial at Mayor's and City County Court in 2023, the couple claimed the gap between the houses belonged to them. They insisted the boundary between the two properties was the flank wall of Ms Naish's house and not the edge of her gutter as she claimed. They won that case and Ms Naish was ordered to pay 65 per cent of her neighbours' lawyers' bills, amounting to about £100,000, on top of her own costs. But Ms Naish has refused to back down and took her case to the High Court for an appeal last week. Her barrister, David Mayall, argued that the original decision was 'fatally flawed' and should be overturned. The appeal is costing more than £30,000 and Mr Mayall said it could result in 'another £200,000' being spent on a second trial if she succeeds. Judge Sir Anthony Mann criticised both parties for the 'ridiculous' row after the court heard the tap had since been removed by Dr Patel anyway. Addressing Mr Mayall, he said: '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.'
