A retired couple is confronted with a statutory invoice of £ 200K after they have failed in a third High Court appeal to save the pension house that they have built 16 centimeters 'too close' at the garden of their neighbors.
Samuel and Kathleen Horton lived in a £ 815,000 house with a detached garage in Downham, Essex, when they decided that they wanted to shrink from their house with three bedrooms.
They converted the garage in 2019 into a house with two bedrooms and moved there after the sale of the main building the following year.
The couple, both at state pensions, was told by the planning of officers that part of a retaining wall that they had built for the conversion was 16 centimeters too close to the garden of their neighbors, Jonathan and Carolyn Orchard.
The Hortons then claimed that the garden fence that separated their property was not on the true border, with a fight on where it is first to Chelmsford County Court and then three times for judges of the Supreme Court.
On every occasion, the couple already lost the assignment to pay the costs of the orchards for the test that resulted in an estimated £ 145,000, and confronted with the demolition of the retaining wall that protected their house.
The Hortons were also instructed to cover the costs of further applications in the case, together with £ 35,000 damage, in addition to their own legal accounts.
At the High Court, the Lord Justice Miles begged the pensioners to give up their legal battle after their lawyer told him that they could not afford to pay.
He was their last request to reject and said: “They must face the fact that the limit was where the judge ordered. There must be an end to a lawsuit '.
Samuel Horton (photo) that arrives at High Court before losing his third profession in a border with his neighbors
Jonathan and Carolyn Orchard depicted outside the Supreme Court after their last legal victory over the Hortons
The original feature (left) with the converted garage that Hortons intended to go on the right. Beyond the hedges, the ownership of the orchard can be seen
The orchards moved to their house in Downham near Billericay in 1999, with Samuel and Kathleen Horton moved next door six years later.
The Hortons started the construction of their new house, which was their rather detached garage, in 2019 before sold their £ 815,000 house the following year.
In a 2023 at Chelmsford County Court, judge Robert Duddridge stated that the new build had been 'controversial', with several complaints of violations on the land of the orchards that were submitted to planners at Chelmsford County Council.
'In an e -mail of 10 July 2020, Chelmsford announced Mr. and Mrs. Orchard that the defendants had built a retaining wall at the back of 111a 40 cm too close to the border and the enforcement team had asked the defendants to carry out recovery works To secure compliance to protect compliance within two months, “he said.
This led to the Hortons obtaining the report of a surveyor, which stated that the fence that the two gardens separated was in fact on their country, and therefore their retaining wall was not too close to the border.
With parts of the fence removed to make access to work possible, landmeters placed in front of the Hortons and then wooden posts in the ground on the orchards side, where they said that the actual limit was.
The orchards went against by claiming that the bet on their side of the true border and in their garden was placed at number 113.
'The orchards' argue that the defendants have positioned these wooden pegs – or have arranged that they would be positioned – to claim the conditions of their building permit, in response to the proposed Chelmsford enforcement measures, “the judge said .
Havin initially claimed an order to stop the work, the orchards eventually went to the court for a decision about where the border between the properties was.
Government on the case in July 2023, judge Duddridge ruled that the evidence made by the orchards was right and that the true limit to the west of the line was claimed by the Hortons.
An aerial photo of the old house of the Hortons (left), their newly converted garage (center) and the house of the orchards on the right
Samuel Horton took off outside the High Court after one of his three failed bids to appeal against the border ruling
'Given the history and the way in which the dispute about the location of the border originated, I think it is more likely than not that it was the threat of Chelmsford to maintain the planning conditions with regard to the proximity of the structures of the defendants To the limit that the limit brought them to obtain the survey, so that they could then claim that they had met those planning conditions, “he said.
'Insofar as the claimants of the claimants, however, implies that the new position of the defendants with regard to the border was not advanced in good faith, I don't think I can draw that conclusion well, given that they trusted it [a surveyor’s] report, although I have found [the] Method and conclusions to be incorrect. '
The Horton case returned last year for the district court, where they had cooled the assignment to pay £ 35,000 in compensation for their violation of the border line.
However, the couple fought against this ruling and, however, applied to the Supreme Court to appeal against the decision. The Supreme Court then traded the original ruling, in which the Horton returned two occasions to the court and was not successful during both visits.
Their lawyer, Dr. Sandy Joseph, argued that new evidence – consisting of a title document from 1958 – 'suggests another border line' the true dividing line is.
Judge Duddridge had also failed to revise all the evidence and gave too little weight to the proof of alleged physical discrepancies on the spot, she claimed.
“This is an older gentleman, they are both retired, they are both at state pensions,” Dr. Joseph. “It is very clear that they try very hard to put a mistake right.”
Carl Brewin, lawyer for the orchards, said that the Hortons were only blamed for their massive court law.
“They are in the position they are because they have disputed every application, disputed the claim and they have lost,” he told the judge.
“Ultimately, the Hortons cannot come over the fact that they have lost.”
Mr. Justice Miles rejected their application to appeal and told the couple they had to give up and accept the ruling about where the border lies.
“I don't think there is a good basis for the introduction of the new evidence, which all concerns a challenge for the original decision of July 2023,” he said.
'This appeal was doomed in the sense that it had never had a realistic prospect to succeed because it is actually an attempt to go another when addressing the July 2023 decision.
“I therefore declare that the application was completely without merit.”
He continued: 'In her submissions, the appellants' counsel said that the appellants tried to correct a mistake.
'I think it is important to say that there is a principle of finality in disputes. They were parties in legal proceedings, in which they could put all their arguments forward.
“They lost those procedures and they must adhere to the order of the court.
“The position of the border is set in the order of July 2023 and, although they don't seem to be willing to accept it, they have to do this and they have to live with that order.”
Before they even consider their own legal costs, the Hortons are now confronted with an astronomical bill of £ 200,000 to cover the lawyers and compensation of their neighbor.
However, Mr. Justice Miles said that their inability to pay should not be included in his statement.
“The appellants' counsel said they will not be able to pay, but the inability to pay is not a reason why a cost order should not be given,” said Mr. Justice Miles.
“This case has a very long history. Rekwirants have shown that they are simply not willing to accept the judgments of the court and the request for permission to appeal is really an attempt to reopen the original order … “
He added: 'It is undoubtedly a very heavy burden for a party in the position of the appellants to have to pay for costs in a case of these types of orders, but that is the consequences of losing legal proceedings.
“They must face the fact that the boundary is where the judge ordered. There must be an end to a lawsuit. '
