The neighbor sued me over lanterns on my property – even their son was by my side

A RETIRED policewoman has won a £100,000 lawsuit after her neighbors sued her over a decorative lantern on her own property.

Frances Pollard and her husband Graham were taken to court after Roger and Margaret Hunt complained that the vintage light prevented them from sleeping in their £1million home in Kent.

4

4

4

Mr and Mrs Hunt, both 80, claimed it was disrupting their “peaceful enjoyment” and took their neighbors to court in a bid to have the light declared an official public “nuisance”.

This move could have exposed Mr. and Mrs. Pollard to criminal charges if they had continued to operate the business.

Judges at Folkestone Magistrates' Court ruled that the lantern could be perceived as “annoying, annoying and perhaps selfless”.

However, they ruled that the Hunts had not proven that the light was a “nuisance” to the environment under the law.

The Hunt family are now facing a £100,000 bill after taking their battle to London's High Court and losing.

Mr and Mrs Hunt's son, Jonathan Hunt, who was a party to the lawsuit and attended the hearing, said after court: “I told my parents not to do this.”

The High Court heard that the neighbors – who have a history of clashes in the past – went to war after the Pollards moved the lantern from the side of their £550,000 home to the back and lit it in December 2021.

The Pollards had not used the lantern for about nine years at that time.

Ian Rees Philips, for the Hunt family, told Mr Justice Bourne that the former police officer and her husband switched on the lights on December 23, prompting immediate complaints from their neighbours.

The Hunt family told them the light – which sits on a bracket four meters above the ground and about five meters from the rear bedroom windows of the Hunts' home – was causing a 'nuisance'.

But the Pollards — after installing a small plastic shield to block the light's direct glare on their neighbors' windows — replied in an email the next day, saying, “We do not find the light to be a nuisance. ..we reserve the right to turn the light on or off at any time”.

The Pollards then operated the lantern “continuously all night long” for the next sixteen nights, “every day from sunset to sunrise, from approximately 4 p.m. to 8 a.m.,” according to the attorney.

He added: “It was on all night and into the early hours.

“Mr and Mrs Hunt had to close the curtains and leave their room lit at night, causing them to have difficulty sleeping and being kept awake regularly at night.

“Despite the blind shield…light still fell directly onto the windows of their second floor property causing a glow to the sky and excessive light pollution to their property and the surrounding area”

A second larger shield was installed, but the Hunts were still dissatisfied and took their case to Folkestone Magistrates' Court.

They have applied under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to classify the light as a legal nuisance, meaning the Pollards would have to stop turning it on or face possible criminal prosecution for breaching an order to not to do that.

However, the judges dismissed the Hunts' case after a three-day trial, saying they had not presented enough evidence to prove their case.

I told my parents not to do this.”

Jonathan Hunt

On appeal, the Hunts asked Mr Bourne to clarify whether the magistrates had taken the wrong legal approach to the case when they rejected their claim.

Their lawyer, Mr Rees Philips, argued that the magistrates had wrongly relied on the evidence of the electrical engineer who measured the light output of the lantern at ground level.

Mr Phillips pointed out that the light was actually projecting upwards and that an accurate measurement would have to be taken from the Hunts' home or other elevated area.

He also said the judges should have found that there was a nuisance after concluding that the light shining all night was “irritating, annoying and perhaps…selfless”.

But Matthew Withers, for Mr and Mrs Pollard, said the magistrates were well aware of where the light measurements submitted by the engineer had been taken from, but dismissed the case anyway.

“The magistrates were not wrong. It was a conclusion open to them based on the facts,” he said.

Mr Bourne agreed and dismissed the appeal.

He said: “The question was not whether there was a deviation from the guidance, but whether there was a statutory nuisance.

'The magistrates simply found that there was insufficient evidence. That's all it took in this case.

“The appellants have not shown that the magistrates made an error of law and this appeal will be dismissed.”

Mr and Mrs Hunt were ordered to pay most of the costs of the appeal because, as the losing party, they already had to pay the costs of the trial.

The judge ordered them to pay £18,000 of the appeal costs for their neighbors, while their bills for last week's hearing totaled £26,000.

Lawyers outside the court confirmed that the total cost of the trial and appeal was more than £100,000.

Mr and Mrs Hunt were not present in court for the appeal.

4