A couple are facing a court bill for almost £200,000 after a long-running neighbourhood row over the positioning of plant pots in their front yard.
Grant Shortland accused Chis Hill, a teacher, and his wife Susan of deliberating putting the pots in their yard to stop him getting his car onto the public highway.
Describing the couple as ‘childish’ a judge has now ordered them to move their flowers in the yard in front of the house in Wincanton, south Somerset.
After a ‘long and wearying’ battle, involving more than 200 interventions by police, the couple face a court bill of up to £200,000.
Grant Shortland accused Chis Hill and his wife Susan of deliberating putting the pots in their yard to stop him getting his car onto the public highway in Wincanton, in Somerset. Pictured left is Mr Shortland’s property and right is the Hill’s. The garden with the table and chairs is the front yard that the Hills tried to block Mr Shortland from using
Mr Shortland, 55, a bricklayer, had a right of way over the Hill’s yard to get his car onto the public highway, the judge said.
But the couple had placed plant pots, a barbecue, a table, children’s toys and chairs to cause ‘maximum inconvenience’ to their neighbour.
The judge said: ‘It is childish behaviour by the defendants and reflects no credit on them or their relatives who took part in this game.
‘I cannot help thinking that they have embarked on this campaign deliberately, with a view to discouraging Mr Shortland, little by little, from making any use of the rights which he has, and so rendering the yard a much more valuable piece of land to them than it was when they bought and paid a reduced price for it.’
The judge ruled that Grant Shortland (pictured with his partner Melanie Heritage) had a right of way over the Hill’s yard
The court heard Mr Shortland and his partner Melanie Heritage, 54, have no direct access from their home to the public road.
But under a previous transfer of the houses he has a ‘right of way’ over the Hill’s yard.
But after initially enjoying a friendly relationship when they moved in 2009, the couple started leaving items in the yard.
It meant Mr Shortland had to either ask the Hills to move them, or do so himself.
The row escalated further when the Hills decided they would no longer speak to Mr Shortland, other than through solicitors, and called police.
‘Thereafter, they contacted the police on a regular basis to complain about actions taken by Mr Shortland in relation to accessing over the yard,’ said the judge.
‘Mr Shortland estimates that the number of police visits, emails, texts and phone calls is well over 200, and involved more than 30 police officers.
‘Mr Shortland and his partner were constantly asked to justify their moving and parking of vehicles and to respond to complaints of swearing at the Hills and their relatives, moving and damaging their property, and more.’
Accusations of intimidation were also made against Mr Shortland and Miss Heritage, but the judge said they were unfounded.
Police had investigated, viewed video footage and agreed there had been no assault or intimidation.
Judge Matthews said Mr Hill (pictured) was ‘oversensitive’ and had a ‘strong sense of entitlement’
Ruling on the case the judge described Mr Hill as ‘oversensitive’, adding: ‘It is also clear that he is convinced that he is in the right and nothing anybody else says will alter that.
‘A strong sense of entitlement permeated the whole of his evidence.
‘He seems not to be able to understand that owning a piece of land which is subject to rights of way does not entitle you to do whatever you like with it.’
The judge said Mrs Hill was ‘passionate in defence of their interests…unfortunately almost to the point of petulance.
‘She sees everything exclusively from their own point of view. She was very concerned in her evidence to emphasise the moral superiority of their position over Mr Shortland.’
The judge ruled Mr Shortland has a right of way over the Hills’ yard and they had ‘interfered’ with it by placing pots and other items there.
He said an injunction was necessary to ensure they now stop.
Judge Matthews, who also ruled on the exact line of the boundary between the properties, ordered the Hills pay 90 per cent of their neighbour’s estimated £98,000 legal bills.
They will also have to pay their own lawyers’ fees, bringing the total cost of the dispute for them to around £200,000.
He concluded: ‘I do however express the hope that Mr Shortland will be magnanimous in victory and will permit them to keep some of the plant pots and maybe other items in the yard.
‘After such a long and wearying battle, it would be a shame if the yard were suddenly to become devoid of colour and of life. But it is a matter for him.’
Speaking afterwards, Mr Shortland said: ‘The outcome seems very fair to us. It’s the right result.’