- Tersia Van Zyl and her husband were left with the bill after the ‘unfortunate row’
A mother who hacked down her next door neighbour’s holly hedge to make her flowerbed two feet bigger has been hit with a £27,000 court bill after her ‘neighbour from hell’ sued.
Tersia Van Zyl and husband Stiaan, both 40, were taken to court after neighbour Peter Walker-Smith accused them of wrongly having the hedge that separated their gardens in Claygate, Surrey cut down.
Mr Walker-Smith – who is corporate treasurer for tobacco giant Imperial Brands, the makers of Rizla and Golden Virginia – lives in the bottom floor flat while the married couple live in the flat above.
Each property has a garden at the rear of the house and Mrs Van Zyl, who was ‘excited’ about having a garden in her first family home, cut down the holly hedge separating them so she could alter the structure of her garden, Central London County Court heard.
But Mr Walker-Smith, 39, sued the couple, claiming they had no right to have the hedge torn up as it was not theirs.
Following a trial, Judge Alan Saggerson blasted the couple’s ‘spiteful’ decision to cut the hedge down when they knew there was an ongoing dispute over who owned it.
After it was discovered the hedge straddled the boundary between the gardens, Mr and Mrs Van Zyl have been ordered to pay Mr Walker-Smith’s £25,000 legal costs.
The couple also agreed to pay £2,200 damages for trespass, having put up the fence to replace the hedge on their neighbour’s land. They also have to move the fence back into their garden.
During the trial last month, the court heard that Mr Walker-Smith bought his ground floor flat in Albany Crescent, Claygate, in 2014.
Mr Van Zyl, a quantity surveyor, and his wife moved into the maisonette above the following year, but the relationship between the neighbours broke down completely afterwards.
Each property had a back garden, separated by a holly hedge, the judge was told.
For the Van Zyls, barrister Lina Mattsson said Mrs Van Zyl, a mother and keen gardener, wanted to chop down the hedge in order to make more room for her plants.
From the witness box, she told the judge: ‘I love gardening, I was excited,’ but added: ‘The hedge was consuming more or less a third of my flower bed that I wanted to use in a different way.’
The barrister said Mr and Mrs Van Zyl obtained a surveyor’s report and were convinced that the hedge separating the two gardens was entirely on their land.
Mr Walker-Smith disagreed, but despite that, the couple in April 2019 engaged contractors to come in and tear up the hedge and replace it with a close-boarded fence.
For Mr Walker-Smith, barrister Jonathan Wills said the couple had ‘unilaterally and outrageously removed the hedge between the parties’ gardens at a time when the parties’ solicitors were corresponding as to the disputed location of the boundary.’
To make matters worse, the fence which the Van Zyls erected was on Mr Walker-Smith’s side of the boundary line, meaning they had effectively land-grabbed part of his garden, Mr Wills said.
‘Mr Walker-Smith’s case is that there was a longstanding hedge, which formed the obvious dividing line between the parties’ gardens.
‘The hedge should have remained, and the parties should have continued to enjoy their respective gardens on either side.’
Removal of the hedge – said by a gardener to be 700mm wide – and replacement with a fence left Mr Walker-Smith’s garden feeling more ‘confined,’ Mr Wills argued.
‘This isn’t the biggest land grab in the world, but in a garden that is triangular, it does make a difference,’ he told the judge.
Giving evidence, Mrs Van Zyl said she considered Mr Walker-Smith the ‘neighbour from hell,’ because the row had taken away her ‘enjoyment’ of her home.
‘This was my first property, where I got married, where my children were born,’ she said.
But Mr Wills said that Mrs Van Zyl herself deserved to be dubbed ‘the neighbour from hell’.
‘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.
‘He has been goaded by having the hedge removed, despite his desire that it stay.’
At the end of the trial, Judge Saggerson lamented the ‘unfortunate’ dispute, adding: ‘Each party has regarded the other as being unreasonable, even spiteful, and had occasion to consider that the other has acted in ways that appear to be deliberately designed to aggravate the other.’
He found that the ‘reasonable layman’ looking at the gardens when the hedge was there would have thought that the boundary ran down the middle of it.
It meant that the Van Zyls had no right to take such a ‘spiteful unilateral action’ in removing it and putting in the new fence where they did.
The judge said: ‘It is quite clear to me that the fence here is in the wrong place. It trespasses on Mr Walker-Smith’s land and it needs to be moved.
‘As a trespass it needs to be moved to…roughly along a line that would be the middle of the hedge.’
Last week, the judge made an order that the Van Zyls pay their neighbour’s lawyers’ bills, with £25,000 up front ahead of a full assessment, and £2,200 on top for trespass.
As well as the hedge, the case had also involved complaints by the Van Zyls about Mr Walker-Smith putting his bins on their land.
The judge made a declaration that Mr Walker-Smith had no right to put his bins on his neighbours’ property.
Just because his property had historically enjoyed a right to pass over the Van Zyls’ land to carry coal to and from a bunker did not mean that he now has a right to use it for bin storage.
However, because Mr Walker-Smith’s bins have been placed in his own front garden for some time now, the judge refused to make an order relating to them.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/articles.rss
Paul Thompson
