Siblings Face Ruinous £250k Court Bill in Neighbour Boundary Dispute Over Leylandii Trees
Three siblings are confronting a potentially devastating legal bill exceeding £250,000 after a judge ruled they trespassed into their neighbours' garden and unlawfully chopped down a row of 33-foot Leylandii trees. The protracted "fence wars" case at Central London County Court has highlighted the severe financial consequences of boundary conflicts between neighbours.
Systematic Destruction of Garden Privacy
Judge Alan Saggerson found that Foulla Bowler, 61, along with her brother John Barberis, 63, and sister Mary Englishby, 59, had taken "unilateral action to re-order the disputed boundary" between their property in Nazeing, Essex, and that of neighbours Robert and Amanda McCarthy. The judge described the dispute as "protracted and potentially ruinous" in his judgment, which was made public last week.
The McCarthys, who bought their home in Common View, Bumbles Green in 2001, told the court their garden had been "immaculate" and "very pleasant" when they moved in. They claimed the "systematic destruction" of their garden had completely ruined their home's privacy, with Robert McCarthy testifying: "I can stand upstairs in my house and they can see me walking around. I want my privacy back like I had."
Boundary Dispute Erupts After Years of Harmony
The two families had lived in "relative harmony" for years before the boundary conflict erupted around 2018. Mrs Bowler and her siblings claimed the true dividing line was actually beyond the existing fence, placing the Leylandii trees on their land. They complained the trees had been "overshadowing" their garden.
Despite knowing a dispute existed, Mrs Bowler applied for permission to fell 29 trees in 2018. The family proceeded with their plan, cutting down most of the trees in January 2022. Barrister Christopher Coyle, representing the McCarthys, told the court the felling work continued into a second day even after the couple wrote to the siblings via lawyers requesting them to stop.
Judge Rejects Siblings' Boundary Claims
In his judgment, Judge Saggerson said the siblings' evidence was "less reliable and less accurate" than the McCarthys', though he did not find they were lying. Instead, he said they had "persuaded themselves of the righteousness of their own case."
The judge rejected claims that the siblings' father, Elias Barberis, had been told when buying their property in 1981 that his land extended six feet beyond the fence line. "I do not accept that he had any reasonable grounds for believing this," Judge Saggerson stated, "although over the passage of many years he may have persuaded himself that this was the position."
Unilateral Action Changes Landscape
The judge detailed how the conflict escalated from May 2018 when the siblings' father, with his son John present, began taking down the fence. Despite objections from Mr McCarthy and replacement fences being installed, the siblings repeatedly removed barriers between the properties.
"On 3 March 2020, a tree surgeon instructed by the defendants attended and started removing trees from their garden," said Judge Saggerson. "In early January 2022, the tree surgeons returned. They cut down the remaining trees along the disputed boundary, completely removing the privacy screen that had existed for so many years."
The judge concluded that the original fence line represented the "true boundary," placing the Leylandii trees firmly within the McCarthys' garden. He found that all parties, including Elias Barberis, had conducted themselves from 2001 to 2018 "on the clear basis that the fence represented their mutual north-south boundary."
Financial Consequences Still to Be Determined
The full financial impact on the siblings will be decided at a hearing scheduled for this summer. However, the ruling means they are likely liable for the McCarthys' legal bills, estimated at £130,000, in addition to their own significant court costs. They may also face compensation payments of up to £115,000 for the destruction of the trees and loss of privacy.
The McCarthys had sued for approximately £115,000 in compensation, including £73,500 to plant new trees and restore their privacy. Judge Saggerson ruled that the McCarthys' claims for trespass were "established on the balance of probabilities," setting the stage for the forthcoming costs hearing that will determine the final financial penalty for the siblings' actions.
