Latest news with #NicholasPartickHiley
Telegraph
2 days ago
- Business
- Telegraph
Parliament's former bell-ringer to pay damages for ripping out neighbour's gate
Parliament's former bell-ringer has been ordered to pay £10,000 in damages after ripping out the gate of a retired banking boss's home. Adrian Udal, 65, demolished the roller gate and door of Nicholas Partick-Hiley's £2 million house on Disbrowe Road in Fulham, west London, in August 2023, the day the former executive moved into the property. Mr Udal, who served as secretary of the belfry at St Margaret's Church, a building that acts as the church for the Houses of Parliament, claimed his actions were an assertion of his rights as the owner of the passage that connects the neighbours' homes. Mr Partick-Hiley has successfully sued for an injunction against Mr Udal, citing 'security concerns' in the street. The judge ruled that Mr Partrick-Hiley had the right to cross the passageway and drive to get to his house, despite it being owned by Mr Udal, who has lived in his property for more than 30 years. Mr Partick-Hiley, a former Panmure Gordon Securities executive, 64, bought the house with the intention of transforming it into a retirement home for him and his wife, Lisa. 'Maximum disruption and distress' Mayor's and City County Court heard that Mr Udal was supposedly involved in a dispute with the previous owner of the home, which was his motive for removing the gate after he found out the property was being sold. Mark Warwick KC, representing the Partrick-Hileys, told Judge Parfitt: 'On the day of completion, Mr Partick-Hiley arrived at the property at about 12.10. 'He was astonished to find Mr Udal and another man... in the process of destroying the door and gate. They were also disconnecting wiring that connected the property to various services.' Mr Warwick told the court that Mr Udal's actions were intended 'to cause maximum disruption and distress'. He added that the Partrick-Hileys had contacted Mr Udal two months before the move, explaining that they planned to install 'more functional gates', but would welcome Mr Udal's input on the new gates' style and design. But the couple claimed their new neighbour bought his own set of metal barriers before they moved in. He installed them in Sept 2023 after ripping out the original gate. 'Unneighbourly conduct' Aaron Walder, Mr Udal's barrister, told the court that the original gate had 'trespassed' on his property. But Judge Nicholas Parfitt KC found that the gates Mr Udal removed were in the correct position and that the Partick-Hileys had a right 'to pass and re-pass either on foot, or with or without vehicles' down the drive and passage. He said: 'Mr Udal's actions in respect of the roller gates and furniture was an inappropriate and wrongful act of wanton destruction… [it was] conduct which any reasonable and objective person should have realised would cause considerable upset and discomfort to the new owners.' The judge went on to award damages for 'unjustifiable and unneighbourly and upsetting conduct, directly related to the claimants' enjoyment of their new property, which the defendant inflicted on them by choice'. Mr Udal, is also predicted to have to pay the trial's legal costs, which are predicted to be six-figures.
Daily Mail
3 days ago
- Business
- Daily Mail
Retired banking boss has legal ding-dong with Parliament's chief bell-ringer for ripping out front gate to his £2m west London home on day he moved in
A retired banking boss and his wife have been embroiled in a legal ding-dong with a Parliament's master bell-ringer after he ripped out the front gate to their £2million west London home when they moved in. Nicholas Partick-Hiley - a former Panmure Gordon Securities top executive - bought his mews cottage in Fulham, in August 2023, planning to make the elegant, sprawling property a dream home for his retirement alongside wife, Lisa. However the 64-year-old ex-financier was shocked when he arrived to find his bell-ringer neighbour, Adrian Udal, 65, demolishing the door and roller gate of his new home in an act of 'wanton destruction'. Mr Udal, who had lived next door to the couple's property for 30 years, claimed he had merely been asserting rights over land he owns when ripping out the previous gate and installing a new one at the end of the driveway. The couple sued for an injunction against Mr Udal, claiming the right to put up new gates across the opening which leads to their house, citing 'security concerns' in the affluent street. They also said Mr Udal had been involved in a dispute with the previous owner of their home, adding that the bell master deliberately plotted to eliminate the gate fronting his new neighbours' property before they moved in. Judge Nicholas Parfitt KC has since handed victory to Mr and Mrs Partick-Hiley, ordering Mr Udal to pay the couple £10,000 as he ruledbell-ringer's actions to be 'unjustifiable and unneighbourly'. He described it as a 'wrongful act of wanton any reasonable and objective person should have realised would cause considerable upset and discomfort.' The two neighbouring homes have unusual layout, with the Patrick-Hileyy's home situated behind Mr Udal's property and is reachable via a drive and a passageway, the court heard. The drive and passageway, which run under Mr Udal's home are owned by the bell-ringer, but the Partick-Hileys have the right to pass over it to get to their house. Mr Udal insisted that their rights over the passage did not include passing through by car or parking a vehicle on it. Representing the Patrick Hileys, Mark Warwick KC told Mayors and City County Court that the incident began when they found Mr Udal destroying the door and gate at around 12pm on move in day. Despite being 'astonished', he said Mr Patrick Hiley 'endeavoured to remain calm' and contacted his solicitors but ultimately 'felt helpless', as Mr Udal and another man continued with the demolition work until around 5pm. 'They were also disconnecting wiring that connected the property to various services,' Mr Warwick KC said. 'No advance warning of any kind had been given by Mr Udal, or anyone on his behalf, that such extraordinary behaviour was going to happen. 'His actions were plainly carefully pre-planned. No amount of persuasion, including the involvement of the police, has caused him to resile, or seemingly regret, his actions. 'The impact of these actions, and contentions, has been serious, their quiet enjoyment and actual enjoyment of their home has been disrupted.' Mr Partick-Hiley and his wife said they were aware of the conflict between their home's previous owner and Mr Udal before moving in, but they hoped it had been resolved by August 2023 until Mr Udal was witnessed dismantling the disputed gate. The couple insisted they have the right to erect and site entrance gates 'on either side of the opening that runs under part of Mr Udal's house,' plus the right to park a car in the area. They went to court seeking an injunction preventing Mr Udal interfering with their rights, which they claimed allows them to attach gates to the side of Mr Udal's house and so block off access to the passage. Their barrister told the judge they had done their utmost to deal in a measured way with Mr Udal even before moving into their new home. It was heard that the couple contacted Mr Udal two months before moving explaining that they planned to install 'better looking and more functional gates' once they moved in. They also made it clear they would welcome Mr Udal's input on the style and design of those gates. But in response, the couple alleged their new neighbour began to plot how to remove and install new gates, buying his own set of metal barriers on July 13, 2023. Their barrister claimed this purchase showed that 'he was planning to carry out the destruction of the existing gates'. When the day of completion arrived, 'Mr Udal and his accomplice duly set about destroying the gates and disconnecting services running through the driveway', he added. Soon afterwards, the couple's lawyers wrote to Mr Udal insisting that the removed gates were their property and that it was up to them to decide what alternatives should be put in their place. 'Mr Udal disagreed,' said the KC, adding: 'On 10 September, he began to hang metal gates, of his own choosing, right next to the pavement.' Mr Udal insisted their right only extends to having the strip gated at the front of the property next to the pavement and they have no right to have a car on his land. In submissions to the court on the master bell-ringer's behalf, his barrister, Aaron Walder, said the Partick-Hileys' original gate had 'trespassed' on his property. However Judge Nicholas Parfitt KC ruled in favour of the Patrick Hileys, sayding Mr Udal was 'a poor witness who came across as preferring his own perception of what might be helpful to his own case, regardless of any objective reality'. 'The overall impression was that truth for him, in the context of legal proceedings at least, was no obstacle to a clever argument about language or the other evidence. The judge found that the gates Mr Udal removed were in the correct position and that the couple have a right 'to pass and re-pass either on foot, or with or without vehicles' down the drive and passage. He added: 'Mr Udal's actions in respect of the roller gates and furniture was an inappropriate and wrongful act of wanton destruction designed, in my view, to, at best, take advantage of the gap between owners occurring at completion, and conduct which any reasonable and objective person should have realised would cause considerable upset and discomfort to the new owners. 'I also find that his the claimants' internet cable for about six weeks; they also led to a lack of privacy and meant that Mrs Partick-Hiley in particular felt uneasy about coming home after dark. 'This (behaviour) was inappropriate and unneighbourly and my impression of Mr Udal is that he is likely, if given the opportunity, to think of other ways in which he can interfere with the claimants' rights if his own ability to believe his own arguments and language constructions manages to suggest them. 'It follows that the claimants' rights need to be vindicated by the granting of declarations and injunctions for their reasonable protection and to limit the risk of a repetition. 'The removal of the roller gates and furniture was a trespass to property and the general conduct on 25 August 2025 was a nuisance and in particular a wrongful interference with the claimants' easements. The defendant's conduct has continued as a sporadic and occasional interference.' Mr Udal is a veteran bell-ringer who was appointed Secretary of the Belfy at St Margaret's Church, Westminster, in 2021, a medieval building next to Westminster Abbey which acts as the church for the Houses of Parliament. Part of his Secretary of the Belfy role involves liaising with clergy when bellringing is needed for special church, state and parliamentary events. The broadcast editor, who is a bell tower captain at St Gabriel's Church Pimlico, also has a keen interest in antique clocks, and was proud to have 'rung in' the New Year nearly annually since 2000. Mr Partick-Hiley is a retired financier and former managing director and head of sales for North America investment banking specialists Panmure Gordon.
