Latest news with #Bakhaty
BBC News
20-05-2025
- General
- BBC News
Winchester couple awarded damages after footballs land in garden
Balls repeatedly kicked over a fence from a school into a neighbouring property's garden were a nuisance, a High Court judge has and Marie-Anne Bakhaty were awarded damages after bringing a legal claim against Hampshire County Council regarding the footballs from Westgate All Through School in Bakhaty told the court in a witness statement that about 170 balls came over the fence over a period of 11 High Court Judge Philip Glen, sitting in Southampton, did not grant an injunction stopping the use of the all-weather play area. The play area, built in 2021, is parallel to, and about 2m (6.6ft) from the boundary of the Bakhaty's house, which has a large garden and swimming are separated by a 1.8m (5.9ft) wooden fence. In his written ruling Judge Glen said: "I recognise that they are extremely fond and proud of what is on any view a beautiful home."I fear, however, that they have become sensitised by the noise from the school in a way which has caused them to become over-invested in their belief that they are victims of a wrong. In short, they have lost perspective."Judge Glen added that while use of the £36,000 all-weather play area did not give rise to "actionable nuisance", the "frequent projection of balls over the boundary" from the play area was a ordered the council to pay the Bakhatys £1,000 in damages when there was "excess use" of the area, and when "significant numbers of balls were crossing the boundary fence".He said he was satisfied that the noise from the school, with or without the play area, was "substantial, in the sense of not being trivial or transient", and that a substantial number of balls crossed the boundary fence before measures were put in place in 2022. The headteacher of the school wrote to the couple to offer to fence off the area to create a buffer zone, put up a ball net, and restrict use of the area at certain times of the couple did not respond, but the school took action Glen added: "If a net was erected to prevent balls and other objects from crossing the boundary fence, I cannot necessarily see that there could be any real objection to opening this area up altogether."He also said he did not consider that the defendant "threatens and intends" to "continue the nuisance". You can follow BBC Hampshire & Isle of Wight on Facebook, X, or Instagram.
Times
19-05-2025
- Sport
- Times
Couple awarded £1,000 over footballs kicked into garden
Repeatedly having footballs kicked over your garden fence constitutes a legal 'nuisance', a High Court judge has ruled, after hearing the case of a wealthy couple prevented from enjoying their swimming pool and summerhouse. Mr Justice Glen ruled that while 'occasional' stray balls might be 'annoying', the 'frequent projection' of them into someone else's property breaches common law. The ruling came as Mohamed and Marie-Anne Bakhaty, who live in a £2 million home in Winchester, Hampshire, successfully sued their council after complaining about footballs landing at a rate of one every other day into their garden from a neighbouring school. They said the balls and noise from an all-weather five-a-side football pitch meant they could no longer use their swimming pool or summerhouse, and were
Telegraph
19-05-2025
- Telegraph
Couple win £1,000 payout over footballs kicked into garden of their £2m home
A wealthy couple have been awarded a £1,000 payout after 170 footballs were kicked into their garden from a neighbouring school. Mohamed and Marie-Anne Bakhaty said the balls and noise from an all-weather play area by their £2 million home in Winchester meant they could no longer use their swimming pool and were forced to cancel their annual summer party because of the 'nuisance'. The couple took the matter to a High Court judge, seeking an injunction prohibiting the use of the £36,000 play area. The judge ruled that repeatedly kicking football over a neighbour's fence and into their garden is 'a nuisance'. While occasional stray balls might be annoying, the 'frequent projection' of them onto someone else's property breaches common law, he added. Mrs Bakhaty, a 66-year-old company director, claimed the sports pitch had 'overtaken my life'. Mr Bakhaty, a 77-year-old property developer, claimed the school 'deliberately' built it to 'upset' the couple. Judge Philip Glen ruled that the footballs were creating a 'nuisance' for the couple and that there was a period when a 'significant' number were landing in the garden of their home. 'Lost perspective' However, while he awarded the Bakhatys £1,000 in damages, he said they had ultimately 'lost perspective' and become 'over-invested' in their belief that they were 'victims of a wrong'. The court, sitting in Southampton, heard that Mr and Mrs Bakhaty moved into their home in the Fulflood district of the cathedral city in 1994. The property neighbours The Westgate School. In 2021, money was raised to transform a grassed playground at the school into an all-weather play area. The area, marked as a five-a-side football pitch, is surrounded by a green wired fence and is around two metres from the boundary of the couple's home. The judge noted that the pitch was not only used during the week but also at weekends because the school rents it out to external organisations. In October 2022, Mr and Mrs Bakhaty issued a High Court claim against Hampshire county council, alleging the noise and escape of footballs amounted to 'a common law nuisance'. Mrs Bakhaty estimated that 170 balls dropped into the garden over an 11-month period and said she could no longer use either her pool or summerhouse. The judge said that when he made a site visit to the house, some 20 footballs lined the flowerbeds of the garden. However, the school put a net over the pitch to prevent balls going astray in July 2022, and the interference had been reduced since then, he added. 'The occasional ball over the fence since that time, something common to many gardens, whilst annoying is not at a sufficient level to be a substantial interference,' he found. Injunction not appropriate In light of these comments, Judge Glen said it would not be appropriate to grant an injunction. But he ordered the council to pay the couple £1,000 in damages for the period in which there was 'excessive use' of the play area and when significant numbers of balls were crossing the boundary fence. He ruled that the use of the pitch by third parties outside of school hours was not done 'conveniently' and was 'therefore a nuisance to that extent', adding that 'the frequent projection of balls' from the pitch was 'a nuisance'. But, he said of the couple's complaint: 'I fear, however, that they have become sensitised by the noise from the school in a way which has caused them to become over-invested in their belief that they are victims of a wrong. In short, they have lost perspective.'
The Guardian
19-05-2025
- The Guardian
Couple successfully sue council over school's footballs landing in garden of £2m home
Many a child has experienced the anxiety of knocking on a frustrated neighbour's door to ask for their ball back. But one couple in Hampshire have become so exasperated by the seemingly endless stream of footballs landing in the garden of their £2m home from a nearby school they have successfully sued the county council. The high court, sitting in Southampton, ruled that repeatedly kicking footballs over a neighbour's fence and into their garden does constitute a nuisance. While occasional stray balls might be annoying, the frequent projection of them on to someone else's property breaches common law, a judge has said. However, the judge also ruled that the couple had lost perspective and refused to prohibit use of the football pitch. Mohamed and Marie-Anne Bakhaty made a complaint about the footballs landing at a rate of one every other day into their Winchester garden from the nearby Westgate school. The Bakhatys said the balls and noise from an all-weather play area meant they could no longer use their swimming pool and were forced to cancel their annual summer party because of the 'nuisance'. Marie-Anne, 66, a company director, and Mohamed, 77, a property developer, took the matter to a high court judge, seeking an injunction prohibiting the use of the £36,000 play area in Winchester. Mr Justice Glen ruled that the footballs were creating a nuisance for the couple and that there was a period when a significant number were landing in their garden. However, while he awarded them £1,000 in damages, he said the Bakhatys had lost perspective and become over-invested in their belief that they were 'victims of a wrong'. The court heard that in 2021, money was raised to transform a grass playground into an all-weather play area. Soon after it opened, the couple complained about the noise and footballs entering their garden. The couple sought legal advice and a letter was sent in 2022 to the school over the matter. Mitigations were then made, including the installation of a net over the top of the pitch to prevent balls going astray, which reduced the number of balls. Despite this, the couple issued a high court claim against Hampshire county council in October of 2022, alleging that the noise and escape of footballs amounted to a 'common law nuisance'. They claimed that the council had infringed their rights under article 8 and article 1 of the European convention on human rights. Mrs Bakhaty estimated that 170 balls dropped into their garden over an 11-month period. The judge said when he made a visit to the house, about 20 footballs lined the flower beds of the Bakhatys' garden. Lawyers representing the council argued the all-weather pitch was a valuable facility for the school and wider community. The judge agreed that the issue had been significantly reduced since the introduction of the mitigation measures, which also included restricting the use of the pitch to the school day until 4.15pm. Glen said it would not be appropriate to grant an injunction but ordered the council to pay the couple £1,000 in damages for the period in which there was 'excessive use' of the play area and when significant numbers of balls were crossing the boundary fence. He added: 'I fear, however, that they have become sensitised by the noise from the school in a way which has caused them to become over-invested in their belief that they are victims of a wrong. In short, they have lost perspective.' The couple declined to comment on the case. Hampshire county council has been approached for comment.
Daily Mail
19-05-2025
- Daily Mail
Kids repeatedly kicking footballs into a garden breaks the law, says judge after couple sue school next to £2m home over 'nuisance' 5-aside pitch
It's an issue that is likely to be familiar to many living next door to young families or a school. But repeatedly kicking footballs over a neighbour's fence and into their garden amounts to a nuisance, the High Court has ruled. While 'occasional' stray balls might be 'annoying', the 'frequent projection' of them onto someone else's property breaches common law, a judge has said. The ruling came in the case of a wealthy couple who have successfully sued a county council after complaining about footballs landing at a rate of one every other day into their garden from a local school. Mohamed and Marie-Anne Bakhaty - who live in a £2 million home - said the balls and noise from an all-weather play area meant they could no longer use their swimming pool and were forced to cancel their annual summer party because of the 'nuisance'. Company director Mrs Bakhaty, 66, claimed that the neighbouring sports pitch had 'overtaken my life' while property developer Mr Bakhaty, 77, insisted the school 'deliberately' built it to 'upset' the couple. They took the matter to a High Court judge, seeking an injunction prohibiting the use of the £36,000 play area in Winchester, Hampshire. His Honour Judge Philip Glen ruled that the footballs were creating a 'nuisance' for the couple and that there was a period when a 'significant' number were landing in the garden of their 'beautiful' home. However, while he awarded them £1,000 in damages, he said that the Bakhatys had ultimately 'lost perspective' and had become 'over-invested' in their belief that they are 'victims of a wrong'. The court - sitting in Southampton - heard that Mr and Mrs Bakhaty moved into their 'impressive' home in the Fulflood district of the cathedral city in 1994. The property is complete with a large south-facing garden and swimming pool, which neighbours The Westgate School – Hampshire's first 'all through' school for pupils aged four to 16. In 2021, money was raised to transform a grassed playground into an all-weather play area. The £36,000 construction, which is marked as a five-a-side football pitch, is surrounded by a green wired fence and is around two metres away from the boundary of the couple's home. The judge noted that the pitch was not only used during the week, but also at the weekends as the school, which is rated Outstanding by Ofsted, would rent it out to external organisations. Soon after it opened, the couple complained about the noise and footballs entering their garden. The school initially set up a meeting to discuss the matter with Mr and Mrs Bakhaty but it was said that this was 'not a success'. The couple sought legal advice and a letter was sent to the school over the matter. In light of this, the institution put 'mitigations ' in place in July of 2022. This included the installation of a net over the top of the pitch to prevent balls going astray, and to restrict its use to the school day until 4.15pm. Despite this, the couple issued a High Court claim against Hampshire County Council in October of that year, alleging that the noise and escape of footballs amounted to a 'common law nuisance'. They said that the council has 'infringed' their rights, under Article 8 and Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights act. The couple sought an injunction, prohibiting 'any use' of the all-weather pitch. This relates to their right to respect for private family life, and their right to enjoy their property peacefully. The High Court heard that the noise which followed the construction of the pitch has been 'immense' and was a 'seismic change' from before. Mrs Bakhaty told the judge that while she was once a keen gardener, the outdoor space is now a 'no go area' due to 'shouting, whistling and the noise of balls hitting the weldmesh fencing'. She estimated that 170 balls dropped into their garden over an 11-month period and said she can no longer use either her pool or summerhouse. It was also heard that the couple 'feel unable to hold their annual summer garden party'. During the hearing, Mrs Bakhaty was cross-examined on this and spoke of the 'anxiety and distress' caused by the 'horrendous noise'. Referring to the mitigating measure put in place by the school, Mrs Bakhaty said this only made the matter 'slightly less unbearable'. Mr Bakhaty gave similar evidence to the High Court, and said that he and his wife have 'completely lost the enjoyment of their home'. The developer said he works long hours but no longer felt able to return home for a 'siesta' - so would take it in his car instead. The judge said that when he made a site visit to the house, some 20 footballs lined the flower beds of the Bakhatys' garden. Lawyers representing the council argued the all-weather pitch was a 'valuable facility' for both the school and wider community. They said the evidence offered by the couple was the 'product of undue sensitivity and exaggeration'. Judge Glen said that expert evidence signified that the levels of noise could be regarded as being as being capable of causing an 'at least moderate annoyance'. He added: 'In the round, I am satisfied that the noise from the to a substantial (in the sense of not being trivial or transient) interference with the ordinary user by [the Bakhatys].' Since the school put the net up, however, the effect had been reduced, he said. 'The occasional ball over the fence since that time (something common to many gardens), whilst annoying, is not at a sufficient level to be a substantial interference,' he found. Judge Glen said it would not be appropriate to grant an injunction. But, he ordered the council pay the couple £1,000 in damages for the period in which there was 'excessive use' of the play area and when significant numbers of balls were crossing the boundary fence. Judge Glen ruled that the use of the pitch by third parties outside of school hours was not done 'conveniently' and was 'therefore a nuisance to that extent'. But, he said the couple had 'become sensitised by the noise from the School in a way which has caused them to become over-invested in their belief that they are victims of a wrong.' The judge added: 'In short, they have lost perspective.' The couple declined to comment on the case.
