A businessman of several millionaire has won a six-digit High Court case against developers after he came home to discover that they had hacked his trees and hedges.
The incident let Auto Repair King Lee Bootle stared at the busy A674-way from his house, with the shocked 54-year-old who lost his appreciated view of the countryside and previous screening from the Hoofdweg.
While abroad on the Balearic Islands, the builders of a nearby £ 100 million business park tore a piece of 120 meters country on the ownership of Mr Bootle.
The businessman originally bought the former farm near Chorley in 2007, before he brought down the old farm and built a lush house with five beds.
But the work soon started at the massive Botany Business Park development in addition to his property, with branches of Costa Coffee, Greggs and Cooperative that all jump.
The last drop for Mr Bootle, however, came when his trees and hedges were dug up from their roots by employees who made preparations for the company park.
In response, he sued the developers and claimed damage to entering the penetration.
Now a judge has ruled in favor of Mr Bootle stating that he is entitled to compensation that could be hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Lee Bootle, 54, (photo) continued developers of a neighboring company park for entering his country
An air image of the lush feature with five beds from Mr Bootle near Chorley
The court heard that the adjacent land of the ownership of Mr. Bootle was purchased by GHL Property Management and Development LTD in 2108.
GHL was originally planning to build a 233-home site, but ultimately chose to develop the £ 100 million business park instead, with a related company FI Real Estate Management Ltd who did the work.
Part of the developing country and the property of Mr. Bootle were separated by a ditch and stream along the outer walls of his garden, with bushes, trees and fences on both sides.
“In anticipation of the building permit, GHL or its contractors started on April 29, 2024 or in this regard,” the judge outlined in his decision.
“This happened when Mr. Bootle was gone for business. On his return the next day, however, Mr Bootle advised workers on the spot that they had cut down and removed trees on his country.
“He advised them that the border was the gate and hedde to the south of the stream, not the Palisade fence on his country in the north.”
During the court case, Mr Bootle claimed in his proof that he arranged a meeting with representatives of the developers who accepted that trees had been felled and that no further work was needed on his side of the border.
He also claimed that the correct boundary between the two property was the ditch and Brook, with which the judge eventually agreed.
Mr Bootle (photo) had left the Balearian Islands when builders entered his property without permission
An image that emphasizes where Mr Bootle's ownership is related to the country of the developer
Although the judge did not grant the damage of Mr Bootle for his loss of privacy, he said that the developers had “committed” substantial acts of violation “that had resulted in” a considerable number of trees and bushes “removed from Mr Bootle's side of The border.
Earlier in the case, Mr. Bootle had obtained an interim order that the developers on the land stretched to a line just south of the ditch and Brook.
The judge said that, because he had found the border on Mr Bootle's side of the stream, the developers had temporarily stopped working on the country that they owned and would therefore be entitled to damage to Mr Bootle for stopping work for About three weeks last summer.
However, he also made a new command, in which he forbade the developers to enter the now decided boundary on the land of Mr Bootle in the future.
“Although I have established that the established border is located north of the ditch, the defendants have repeatedly transferred to the north of the established border in the course of the development project and thus shown an informal contempt for the true line of the border,” said he.
“It can reasonably be suspected that they will continue to do this unless they are held by an order.”
Mr. Bootle is now waiting on a date to return to the court for a decision about how much compensation he has been established to receive, although he is also held liable to pay back a reimbursement to the developers for the three weeks lost working time.
