- Neighbours in Thundersley, Essex, had their case go to London's High Court
- See more Daily Mail on Google - save us as a Preferred Source
A couple who lost a 14-year fight with neighbours over six inches of land and a 'sentimental' ornamental squirrel have failed with an appeal - and seen their court bill hiked to £150,000.
Philip and Denise New Denise ended up in a court row with next door neighbours Steve and Karen Gibson after a disagreement about the fence between their Essex gardens in 2012.
The argument about a few inches of land escalated, with the Gibsons left devastated when the News removed a 'sentimentally valuable' squirrel ornament from a post between the houses.
Mr Gibson was also shocked to learn comedy songwriter Mr New had written and published on YouTube derogatory tracks about him and about the battle between the two couples.
One song, called Neighbours, purported to offer advice on how to deal with bad neighbours and included the words: 'Throw s at their window, s at the door/ Call him a w*, call her a w*e.'
After a judge found against Mr and Mrs New at Southend County Court, they were last year ordered to pay the Gibsons £13,305 in combined damages and interest, and handed lawyers' bills estimated at about £120,000 for the case.
However, they were back in court earlier this month after launching a High Court appeal against the damages amount.
The News argued it was substantially too high and should be reduced, with the result that the costs bill should also be overturned.
Philip and Denise New are seen outside London's High Court in July this year
Their neighbours' ornamental squirrel on a post between the two houses is red-circled
The two couples live in neighbouring semi-detached properties in Thundersley, Essex, with their gardens now separated by parallel fences (pictured)
Despite having the damages amount reduced by £700, the News have instead now been handed a further £19,000 bill for their neighbours' legal costs after a judge found the Gibsons were the winners of the case in 'substance and reality'.
Mr Justice Thompsell said the News' motivation for appealing had been to secure a large enough reduction in the damages to allow them to also then avoid having to pay their neighbours' costs.
However, he said a £700 reduction did not justify overturning the six-figure bill they were already facing, and ordered them to pay on top of that the Gibsons' £19,000 costs of the appeal.
In the earlier judgment on the case at the county court, Judge Robert Duddridge described the 'wretched' dispute as one which had 'consumed' the neighbours' lives and was 'unusually disproportionate, difficult and frustrating.'
Setting out the background, he said the two couples live in next door semi-detached properties in Thundersley, Essex, with their gardens separated by a wooden fence.
The Gibsons' house was previously Mrs Gibson's parents' house, but the couple also lived there during the 1980s before moving back in 2011 after inheriting it.
Mr and Mrs New own and live next door in a road where detached properties typically sell for about £400,000 - having bought their house in 2006.
The dispute began in 2012 when Mr New replaced some fence panels, with the Gibsons complaining it was in the wrong place and not in a straight line.
A bitter 14-year feud over six inches of garden, an ornamental squirrel and demeaning YouTube songs has left Philip and Denise New (pictured) facing a £130,000 court bill - now £150,000
The couples agreed to settle their differences outside court, with the appointment of an independent surveyor to determine the line of the boundary in 2015.
But Mr and Mrs New disagreed with the line chosen by the expert and had a second opinion by another, leading to the dispute escalating into a court battle when the Gibsons sued in 2018.
In 2021, the court ruled on the case, resulting in a declaration that the line chosen by the first surveyor had to be abided by and handing victory to Mr and Mrs Gibson.
After a series of failed appeals, the case then moved on to Judge Duddridge for a determination of the amount in damages which the Gibsons were due for the News' fence having trespassed on their land.
In his evidence, Mr Gibson, a builder with a rare disability affecting his bones, said he thought the 2015 agreement would bring 'finality' to the dispute but instead the News had not accepted it and continued to trespass.
Interactions with their neighbours became 'hostile' and they no longer used their garden like they would have done otherwise, he claimed.
He said he had 'lost his heart and soul' and he and his wife had been moved to tears at times due to the conflict with Mr and Mrs New.
He told the court of his upset when Mr New removed an ornamental squirrel from a post between the properties shortly after they lost an appeal in the case, before then removing the post itself with his hands and a mallet.
The boundary line drawn up by a surveyor on Philip New's request, showing the tiny amount of land in dispute is pictured in this sketch
The judge said: 'According to his statement, the squirrel post had been built by his parents in law, he had purchased the squirrel as a gift for Mrs Gibson and her parents during the 1980s and, for that reason, it had enormous sentimental value.
'He says that the gatepost had sentimental value, but was also of practical importance because they are no longer able to bolt their gate shut.'
In November 2020, one of the Gibsons' children had discovered two songs - called Neighbours and Magic Garden - on YouTube and Facebook, said the judge.
'The song Neighbours gives advice to the listener about how to deal with bad neighbours', he said.
'The song Magic Garden describes somebody who uses walking sticks and purports to be in pain when out in public, but throws their sticks away and is miraculously pain free when in their garden and is committing benefits fraud.
'Mr Gibson described how upsetting, hurtful and hateful he found this song, which he thought was clearly about him, in view of his serious and rare disability and the difficulties he has had coming to terms with it.'
Giving judgment on the damages assessment, Judge Duddridge rejected the Gibsons' claim to have lost the use of a 'substantial' part of their garden due to the News' trespass.
He said that although the trespass had prevented them fencing the garden the way they wanted and from completing its landscaping, to say they had physically lost use of a large part was wrong.
The weeds and plants that Mr New had removed from the original fence in his garden
However, he also rejected Mr New's claim that his 'tongue in cheek' songs, although 'inspired' by his interactions with his neighbours, were not actually about them.
'I am satisfied that the songs Neighbours and Magic Garden were directly about the Gibsons,' said the judge.
'Although I would not use the phrase "tongue in cheek" to describe their unpleasant and personal content, I accept that Mr New intended them to be satirical and did not intend the advice in Neighbours to be actually carried out.
'I also accept that they were not sent directly to Mr and Mrs Gibson or intended for their consumption.
'However, he posted them on public social media sites - his Facebook and YouTube accounts - and could have foreseen that they might come to their attention or be viewed by people who knew them, exposing them to ridicule, humiliation and embarrassment.
'As he ended up acknowledging, their content is offensive and defamatory. I accept that the claimants, in particular Mr Gibson, found the songs deeply hurtful and embarrassing given his rare condition, and that it aggravated the unpleasantness, emotional upset and mental health issues caused by this dispute.'
He also rejected Mr and Mrs New's claim that they removed the squirrel and post because it was dangerous and said he was not convinced they genuinely thought the post was theirs until after their realisation that it was on their side of the boundary.
'Although Mr New was able to dislodge the top half of it by hand, I do not believe that it was dangerous or unstable, or that this was their true motive for removing it', he said.
A broken part of the original fence which runs behind Philip and Denise New's garden
'It had been in situ for about 40 years and there is no objective evidence that it had ever shown any signs of spontaneously falling over or being vulnerable to being knocked over accidentally.
'In my view, the true explanation for their actions is likely to be that they were angry at losing the appeal and decided to dismantle it in pique at their disappointment.
'In my judgment it was highly unreasonable for the defendants to remove the ornamental squirrel and the squirrel post at the time and in the manner they did.'
Although the trespass by the News' fence was only by a 'matter of inches' onto the wrong side of the line and affected a 'trivial' amount of land, the Gibsons were 'entitled to be compensated for the inconvenience and distress' they were caused.
The judge awarded them 'aggravated damages' due to Mr and Mrs New's 'high-handed, insulting or oppressive conduct'.
The case reached the High Court in London earlier this month after Mr and Mrs New launched an appeal against the damages award they were ordered to pay.
Their barrister Paul Wilmshurst said the amount, exceeding the £3,000 they offered their neighbours as settlement prior to the trial, resulted in them also being handed a 'ruinous' bill for the Gibsons' lawyers' costs.
He said: 'While the overall award may be modest, its exact figure makes the difference, given the ruinous costs sought by and awarded to Mr and Mrs Gibson.
'There was no good reason to depart from the normal position that trivial trespasses at best attract nominal damages.'
Damages relating to the removal of the squirrel post were also wrong, he argued, because it was on the News' side of the boundary as defined by the surveyor in 2015, and so belonged to them.
'Whatever is affixed to the soil belongs to the soil,' he said.
Urging Mr Justice Thompsell to overturn the damages amount, he said the News had been wrought an 'injustice' by an 'unjustified and unprecedented damages claim and ruinous costs over worthless, trivial land that they - there can be no dispute - handed over in 2021.'
Giving judgment, the judge ordered a £700 reduction in the overall amount to be paid on the basis that the lower judge may have wrongly awarded damages for a period after the end of 2021 when the Gibsons could have erected a new fence.
However, refusing to cut the award any further, he said: 'I consider that the judge was entitled to assess compensation by reference to the squirrel post incidents and the scurrilous songs and that there is no reason to go behind his calculation of the appropriate award of damages in relation to these matters.
'He understood that compensation for any encroachment on the land would need to be minimal.
'However, it was not the encroachment on the land that drove his assessment of loss: he was assessing damages for distress, loss of privacy, inconvenience and loss of amenity caused by both a continuing trespass and a breach of an agreement and found justification for doing this in a number of decided cases.
'The major motivation of this appeal for the appellants was to overturn the very substantial award of costs in favour of the respondents in the previous proceedings.
'The small reduction in damages that the appellants have achieved should and will have no effect in changing that award.
'I find that the respondents must be regarded as the successful party in relation to this appeal. The respondents have won as a matter of substance and reality.'
The decision means Mr and Mrs New will have to pay their neighbours about £12,600 in damages, nearly £19,000 to cover their lawyers' bills for the appeal.
They must also foot the bill for the proceedings at the county court, estimated by the Gibsons' legal team at about £120,000.