A Surrey man has opted to sue his neighbours and handed them a £27,000 court bill after cutting down their holly hedge to expand a flower bed.
Tersia Van Zyl and Stiaan Van Zyl, both 40, were taken to court by Peter Walker-Smith after being accused of wrongly having the hedge that separated their Surrey gardens chopped down in April 2019.
The couple instead decided to replace the hedge with a fence.
Van Zyl hired contractors to chop down the hedge in an attempt to expand the flower bed.
Peter Walker-Smith (inset) and a stock image of a hedge
FACEBOOK/GETTY
Central London County Court heard how Walker-Smith, 39, sued the couple after claiming they had no right to remove the hedge.
Judge Alan Saggerson ruled the hedge straddled the boundary between the neighbours' two gardens.
He also ordered the couple to pay Walker-Smith’s £25,000 costs for the “unfortunate” row.
The Van Zyls even agreed to pay £2,200 damages for trespass as the replacement fence was built on their neighbour’s land.
The fence will now be moved backwards onto their land.
Walker-Smith, a corporate treasurer for tobacco giant Imperial Brands, told the court last month that he bought his ground floor flat in Albany Crescent, Claygate, in 2014.
LATEST DEVELOPMENTS:
Peter Walker-Smith accused the couple of wrongly having the hedge that separated their Surrey gardens chopped down in April 2019
The Van Zyls lived in the maisonette above after moving in the following year.
Each property includes back gardens separated by a holly hedge.
The couple’s barrister Lina Mattsson claimed the Van Zyls obtained a surveyor’s report and were convinced that the hedge separating the two gardens was entirely on their land.
However, Jonathan Wills, representing Walker-Smith, alleged 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”.
He added: “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.”
Wills later argued the removal of the hedge and replacement fence made Walker-Smith’s garden feel more “confined”.
The costs could soon spirall in the neighbours' row
GETTY
He told the judge: “This isn’t the biggest land grab in the world but in a garden that is triangular, it does make a difference.”
Judge Saggerson described the dispute as “unfortunate”, 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.”
However, Walker-Smith has warned the bill could almost double to £50,000.
He also told The Daily Mail: “I did not ask for this. We were corresponding through solicitors when they went ahead and cut down the hedge.
“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.
“They were asked to remove it, but it did not happen, and we ended up in court.”
