A Surrey couple have lost their High Court appeal over a £27,000 garden boundary dispute after removing a shared holly hedge to expand their flowerbed.
Tersia and Stiaan Van Zyl were taken to court by their downstairs neighbour Peter Walker-Smith after they tore down the bush separating their gardens in Claygate and replaced it with a fence.
Justice Marcus Smith rejected their appeal this week, upholding an earlier ruling that found the couple had no right to take such "spiteful unilateral action" in removing the jointly-owned hedge.
Tersia, who was "excited" about having a garden in her first family home, had the holly hedge removed in April 2019 to create more space for her plants.
"The hedge was consuming more or less a third of my flowerbed that I wanted to use in a different way," she told the court.
The couple hired contractors to remove the hedge and install a close-boarded fence, despite objections from Walker-Smith.
The fence was erected on Walker-Smith's side of the boundary line, effectively claiming part of his garden, the court heard.
A gardener testified the removed hedge had been 700mm wide, with its removal making Walker-Smith's triangular garden feel more "confined."
Walker-Smith, a corporate treasurer for tobacco giant Imperial Brands, purchased his ground floor flat in Albany Crescent, Claygate, in 2014.
The Van Zyls, with Stiaan working as a quantity surveyor, moved into the maisonette above the following year.
The relationship between the neighbours deteriorated after the Van Zyls' arrival.
LATEST DEVELOPMENTS:
In March 2023, Walker-Smith took the couple to Central London County Court, claiming they had no right to remove the hedge.
Judge Alan Saggerson ruled in Walker-Smith's favour, finding that the boundary ran down the middle of the original hedge.
The Van Zyls claimed they had obtained a surveyor's report indicating the hedge was entirely on their land.
Tersia told the court this was her "first property, where I got married, where my children were born," describing Walker-Smith as the "neighbour from hell."
But barrister Jonathan Wills, representing Walker-Smith, argued it was Tersia who deserved that title.
"It might be said that Mr Walker-Smith isn't the neighbour from hell, but that it is the neighbour who has removed a hedge that was there for very many years," Wills told the court.
The Van Zyls' barrister, Lina Mattsson, argued their actions were based on measurements from the lease plan.
In rejecting the Van Zyls' appeal, Justice Marcus Smith said the lease plan they relied on was "not to scale" and "exceedingly small and hard to read."
He backed Judge Saggerson's finding that the plan was "transparently obvious" that it was "only for the purposes of identification" rather than defining the exact boundary.
"The judge did not hold that the plan should be disregarded. To the contrary, he took it into account," Justice Smith said.
He ruled the original judge had "construed the evidence before him as a whole and reached the correct conclusion."
The Van Zyls have been ordered to pay their neighbour £2,200 in damages and £25,000 towards his legal costs.
Speaking after his 2023 victory, Walker-Smith said the final court bill for his "nightmare" neighbours could reach £50,000.
"I did not ask for this. We were corresponding through solicitors when they went ahead and cut down the hedge," he said.
"I had asked them not to cut it down but they went ahead anyway. It is very unfortunate how it has all ended up but they had decided not to wait and just put up the fence."
Find Out More...
Tersia and Stiaan Van Zyl were taken to court by their downstairs neighbour Peter Walker-Smith after they tore down the bush separating their gardens in Claygate and replaced it with a fence.
Justice Marcus Smith rejected their appeal this week, upholding an earlier ruling that found the couple had no right to take such "spiteful unilateral action" in removing the jointly-owned hedge.
Tersia, who was "excited" about having a garden in her first family home, had the holly hedge removed in April 2019 to create more space for her plants.
"The hedge was consuming more or less a third of my flowerbed that I wanted to use in a different way," she told the court.
The couple hired contractors to remove the hedge and install a close-boarded fence, despite objections from Walker-Smith.
The fence was erected on Walker-Smith's side of the boundary line, effectively claiming part of his garden, the court heard.
A gardener testified the removed hedge had been 700mm wide, with its removal making Walker-Smith's triangular garden feel more "confined."
Walker-Smith, a corporate treasurer for tobacco giant Imperial Brands, purchased his ground floor flat in Albany Crescent, Claygate, in 2014.
The Van Zyls, with Stiaan working as a quantity surveyor, moved into the maisonette above the following year.
The relationship between the neighbours deteriorated after the Van Zyls' arrival.
LATEST DEVELOPMENTS:
- Neighbour branded 'selfish' after refusing to allow homeowner to use their Wi-Fi for free
- 'Just move house!' Neighbour row erupts as man's van plastered in 'passive aggressive' notes
- Neighbours clash as 'shockingly bright' renovations on £1m townhouse compared to 'Love Island villa'
In March 2023, Walker-Smith took the couple to Central London County Court, claiming they had no right to remove the hedge.
Judge Alan Saggerson ruled in Walker-Smith's favour, finding that the boundary ran down the middle of the original hedge.
The Van Zyls claimed they had obtained a surveyor's report indicating the hedge was entirely on their land.
Tersia told the court this was her "first property, where I got married, where my children were born," describing Walker-Smith as the "neighbour from hell."
But barrister Jonathan Wills, representing Walker-Smith, argued it was Tersia who deserved that title.
"It might be said that Mr Walker-Smith isn't the neighbour from hell, but that it is the neighbour who has removed a hedge that was there for very many years," Wills told the court.
The Van Zyls' barrister, Lina Mattsson, argued their actions were based on measurements from the lease plan.
In rejecting the Van Zyls' appeal, Justice Marcus Smith said the lease plan they relied on was "not to scale" and "exceedingly small and hard to read."
He backed Judge Saggerson's finding that the plan was "transparently obvious" that it was "only for the purposes of identification" rather than defining the exact boundary.
"The judge did not hold that the plan should be disregarded. To the contrary, he took it into account," Justice Smith said.
He ruled the original judge had "construed the evidence before him as a whole and reached the correct conclusion."
The Van Zyls have been ordered to pay their neighbour £2,200 in damages and £25,000 towards his legal costs.
Speaking after his 2023 victory, Walker-Smith said the final court bill for his "nightmare" neighbours could reach £50,000.
"I did not ask for this. We were corresponding through solicitors when they went ahead and cut down the hedge," he said.
"I had asked them not to cut it down but they went ahead anyway. It is very unfortunate how it has all ended up but they had decided not to wait and just put up the fence."
Find Out More...