The Neigbours Are Both "Potty" Says Lord Justice Ward

The Daily Mail reports today that Lord Justice Ward (pictured above) has labelled two neighbours continuing a dispute about a smallish amount of land in the Court of Appeal "potty".

This is a boundary dispute. Not all neighbour disputes are boundary disputes but all boundary disputes (alright, most of them) are neighbour disputes.

"Potty" is an apt description for most parties to neighbour disputes. They are as acrimonious as divorces with, usually, not much in issue in terms of the value of the land but huge amounts tied up in legal costs.

Lord Justice Ward gave Mr Robert Beton permission to appeal i.e. he gets the right to a hearing before a full three judge Court of Appeal. This is not a sensible use of court time.

Lord Justice Ward is fully aware of this. He had some trenchant comments to make:

“This is another of that hideous form of litigation called the boundary dispute, a form of litigation which is best not pursued.

"Just how much is this stupid piece of land worth? What you are arguing over is a few rhododendron bushes.

"If you live in St Georges Hill, you've got money to throw away, presumably. But why throw it away like this? You're all potty.

"Disputes of this kind are a most hateful form of litigation; go away and sort it out."

It is rare for permission to appeal applications to be reported. I hope this one is; if only for those words. They form a sensible basis for advising any client wishing to litigate a neighbour dispute.

My first choice is to advise my client's to forget it unless there is some serious land value involved and a strong case.

My second choice is to try to get the parties to agree a joint instruction to a land surveyor and enter into an agreement to be bound by his or her determination.

Hey presto. No huge legal fees and a surveyor who is likely to cost under a £1,000.

And it is going to be surveying evidence that is likely to be conclusive in most cases anyway.

Litigation to resolve these disputes is therefore correctly described by Lord Justice Ward as "potty".

Legal costs may not be the only reason to avoid litigation. In a divorce, sometimes you may be living in the same house but not always. A divorce is one of the most stressful processes you will encounter in your life. In a neighbour dispute you will, by definition, always be living next door to each other. Others may take sides.

So why is the Court of Appeal giving them time in this case against Lord Justice Ward's better opinion? The answer is because he has to. Mr Beton employed a QC who has found an arguable point:

"The judge found that adverse possession must have been manifest to the owner.

“But he failed to give weight to the fact that the presence of the bushes was such to make much of the fence not observable.”

Of such points are Court of Appeal decisions worthy and, even so, to get this far, someone had to be so oblivious to costs that he was willing to fund leading counsel to review the papers. The question remains, in the words of Lord Justice Ward:

"Just how much is this stupid piece of land worth?"

I will just add this. One neighbour dispute I was involved in lasted years. Both parties were well off and retired. It ended one day when one of the parties dropped down dead of a heart attack. Needless to say, they were having one of their verbal arguments outside their houses as to who could park where in their private road. My client wanted me to continue proceedings against the widow. I declined the instructions.