Latest news with #landdispute
Daily Mail
3 days ago
- Health
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE Care home SLAMS Martha's Vineyard millionaire for 'stopping seniors from enjoying the beach'
A care home on Martha's Vineyard has slammed a millionaire homeowner for allegedly gatekeeping a beach from its elderly and disabled residents. Melinda Loberg, a longtime resident of the famed Massachusetts island, filed a lawsuit against Havenside - a non-profit corporation affiliated with the Island's Episcopal Churches and the Diocese of Boston - on May 12. Havenside is a senior living facility that sits just behind Loberg's $5 million waterfront home - but a fierce legal war was launched after elderly residents were allegedly crossing into the homeowner's land to get to Vineyard Haven Harbor. The care home, however, argues that they have always had a right to use the 13-foot corridor on the north side of her land to gain access to the beach. Now, Lucinda Kirk, the property manager of Havenside Corporation, told that Loberg's lawsuit is just 'a land grab against island seniors.' The majority of Havenside's residents are disabled and elderly - and they deserve to 'enjoy the many health benefits of salt air and serenity,' she said. In the suit, Loberg claimed that when she bought the home in 1992 she was never told about the easement access that the seniors allegedly have - triggering the neighborhood dispute last month. Fighting back, Kirk told 'The lawsuit that our neighbors filed should be seen for what it is: A land grab against Island Seniors. She has lived at her $5 million idyllic home on Crocker Avenue with her husband since July 1992. Havenside has since told Loberg its residents have a right to use a small path on her property to get to the water. (her property is circled in red on the left, and the senior home is circled on the right) 'The Lobergs want to incorporate our easement into their beach-front property, apparently without any care how that will affect Havenside's 36 Residents. 'Our neighbors are attempting to outspend us in legal proceedings to grab our land with bogus legal claims.' Many of Havenside's residents don't just live in the apartments for affordable housing, but also 'have mobility disabilities and/or chronic health conditions,' the spokeswoman added. Kirk added: 'The land of Havenside has an appurtenant easement which provides beach access for our Seniors. It is the safest and easiest way for our Residents to enjoy the many health benefits of salt air and serenity. 'The issue at stake for Havenside is not about money, but preserving safe and equal access to the beach for our senior Residents.' The legal filing went on to state that any access rights were taken away before Havenside took over its property. Loberg also emphasized that she has been using the land for 30 years which voids the corporation's past claims to it. Havenside said that information is false and that it has had an easement there since 1890, the Vineyard Gazette reported. The specific area that the senior center is claiming to control is a space that the Loberg's 'cleared the existing vegetation' from, along with 'removed tires, bottles, car mats, and large chunks of macadam and then planted Parcel 2A with grass,' the documents read. Following the cleanup, the couple decided to install a 170-foot fence along the area in question - cutting off access for more than two decades, the lawsuit stated. Havenside said they planned to gain access to the beach by cutting the grass between the fence and garden beds to construct an entry gate, the filing continued. After informing Loberg of its plans, the corporation sent a tenant by the name of Frank Rapoza over to the property, 'carrying tools,' so he could 'install' the fence, per the lawsuit. Tensions quickly rose when Loberg saw him standing in her driveway ready to get to work, so much so that she threatened to call the police if he attempted to install the gate. With that, Rapoza fled the property, but soon after Loberg received a phone call from him 'threatening to return and install the gate,' the lawsuit detailed. 'In response to this phone call, Plaintiff installed a "No Trespass" sign on the Property line near the Havenside Property,' it added. A manager with Havenside then reached out to Loberg and stated that Rapoza 'was not an agent of Havenside or its Board. Any representation otherwise has never been authorized.' Loberg, a former Tisbury select board member, chose to sit down with Havenside on July 14, 2024 to talk about the issue, but 'representatives were not inclined to discuss alternative solutions and instead insisted upon the existence of the purported access easement,' her lawsuit read. Later that month, the corporation offered to 'remove' the easement in exchange for 'a cash payment,' but Loberg denied the 'extortive offer.' By October of that year, Havenside filed a Wetlands Protection Act Notice of Intent (NOI) with the local Conservation Commission 'seeking approval to make improvements on Plaintiff's Property within the alleged Access Easement,' the lawsuit said. In that filing, 'Havenside falsely claimed to be the owner of the Property, failing to accurately fill out Section 3 requiring them to list the Property Owner if different from the applicant,' it went on. In February, the Loberg's said they 'discovered a group from Havenside, including Mr. Rapoza, trespassing on Plaintiff's Property and in the process of cutting Plaintiff's Fence in order to install a gate.' Loberg then called the police who asked the group to vacate, but 'declined' to forcibly remove them, noting that it was a 'civil matter.' The lawsuit also included an image of Rapoza, an alleged 'manager of Havenside,' and unknown person 'destroying a section of Plaintiff's Fence and installing the gate.' A police report was also filed in relation to the incident. 'Mr. Rapoza subsequently returned and finished installing the Gate,' the lawsuit said, adding that Havenside has since added signage to the entrance of Loberg's property stating that residents are allowed to use that as an access point to the beach. Loberg 'feels harassed and threatened by the conduct of Havenside's tenants and does not feel safe on her Property as a result of their conduct,' the filing concluded. She has demanded that 'Havenside, its guests, tenants and invitees' are not allowed to access her property and that it does not benefit from any easement over the Plaintiff's Property for the purpose of accessing Vineyard Haven Harbor.' An initial hearing was held on May 20 and the next is set for June 16, according to documents. Kirk said Havenside is working on obtaining a pro bono lawyer to fight for residents to gain access to the waterfront.
Daily Mail
16-05-2025
- Daily Mail
Star of Storage Hunters fined after driving his BMW at a woman in her 70s - in a dispute over land he wanted to build on
A star of Storage Hunters has been fined after being found guilty of driving his BMW at a woman in her 70s in a dispute over land. Daniel Hill, 43, known as 'Dapper Dan' on the reality TV series, was caught on CCTV driving his car towards the woman in the small village of Haslingfield, Cambridgeshire on March 9 last year. He appeared to drive at speed and then braked heavily, coming to an abrupt stop just in front of her on Badcock Road. The TV star, from Marham, King's Lynn, was sentenced at Cambridge Magistrates' Court on May 6. He was given nine points on his licence after being found guilty of driving without due care and attention. He must also pay a £660 fine. PC Lazaro, from the South Cambs Neighbourhood Team, who investigated, said: 'There has been an ongoing dispute over land in Haslingfield. 'Hill deliberately used his car in a threatening manner. His driving fell far below that of a reasonable and competent driver. It's fortunate that the victim was not crashed into and injured as a result.' It comes after Hill acquired a plot of land in Badcock Road, which had been gardened by a woman in her 70s and her husband for 40 years, in November 2023. He bought it - along with a second piece of land - for £18,000 at an auction of assets of the original estate developer who had gone into liquidation. Hill, who appeared in all five UK series of Storage Hunters from 2014 to 2016 as a 'main buyer,' said at the time that he had 'done the deal of the century'. He also claimed the local residents should have 'stuck their hand in their pocket' if they wanted the land. Hill later claimed the villagers had been trying to drive him away and accused them of 'harassing' him and 'causing criminal damage' to his property. But the residents said he had been 'terrorising' them with his heavy handed behaviour. Hill was arrested and bailed by Cambridgeshire Police in December 2023, accused of harassment, criminal damage and common assault, but was released at the beginning of March last year without charge. He then removed a silver birch, which had a Tree Preservation Order, and submitted plans for a house on his land. Neighbours inundated Cambridge Shared Planning with letters of objection, complaining it would be 'overdevelopment of the area,' as well as lead to 'loss of light'. They also argued it would pose a safety risk to pedestrians and vehicles as it is on a bend. In March last year, Hill was denied planning permission because officers said the site was of an 'insufficient size' and in an 'inappropriate location.' They added: 'The introduction of any dwelling on the site would result in an undesirable form of cramped and contrived development in a prominent location that would be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area and would give rise to harm to the amenities of neighbouring properties.' Over the last year Hill has been spotted back at the site, dumping dozens of tyres around his land to prevent people accessing it and burning hedge cuttings. In December 2023 Mr Hill said: 'I saw this cheap bit of land at auction. That's how I make my money, I buy stuff cheap and try to make a profit on it. 'Originally I thought it was one of those things where it would go crazy money, it's a beautiful village here. I was watching the auction and it landed around the £5,000 to £6,000 mark and I thought, I've got to have some of this. 'I started bidding and got it for £12,000, obviously there are fees on top, happy days, I actually thought I'd done the deal of the century. I was really happy with it. 'I come down here. I did all my research before. I thought there's planning policy, support planning in the area, there's no TPO's, turned up here and started cutting the trees down, then wham all the villagers came out, almost like with their pitchforks and their angry faces, 'no, no, no, you can't have this land.' 'I said, 'sorry I've bought it', I couldn't really understand what the problem was and ever since then they have been sour pusses. They didn't buy it. I'm not going to buy any tears, this is not a poor area. 'You've got accountants, bankers, all kids of very wealthy people here. If they wanted the land they should have bought it.'
The Sun
15-05-2025
- The Sun
Neighbours locked in ‘ridiculous' 7-year war over garden HOSE on tiny strip of land between 2 homes
A £250,000 seven-year neighbours' row over a few inches of land sparked by a doctor's garden tap has been blasted as "ridiculous" by a top judge. Pensioner Christel Naish and her doctor neighbour Jyotibala Patel have been fighting a bitter court war over an inches-wide strip between their houses that is too narrow for someone to comfortably walk down. 3 Ms Naish complained that Dr Patel's garden tap and pipe were "trespassing" on her property in Ilford, east London, sparking an expensive legal battle. Last year, after a trial at Mayors and City County Court, Christel was left with more than £200,000 in lawers' bills for the case when the judge ruled in Jyotibala's favour. But Ms Naish, 81, is now fighting on, despite being told that the case could end up costing about £500,000 if she wins. After the trial, Christel had to pay around 65% of her neighbours' costs, totalling around £100,000 on top of the six-figure sum she ran up herself. However the appeal itself is costing more than £30,000, the High Court heard, and her lawyers say it could result in "another £200,000" being blown on a second trial if she succeeds. At the High Court, senior judge Sir Anthony Mann blasted the parties for the "ridiculous" row after hearing that the tap and pipe issue which began the dispute did not even matter any more, with the tap having now been removed by Dr Patel. Senior judge Mann said: "Hundreds of thousands of pounds about a tap and a pipe that doesn't matter - this brings litigation into disrepute." "You don't care about the pipe and the tap, so why does it matter, for goodness' sake, where the boundary lies? "It seems to me to be a ridiculous piece of litigation - on both sides, no doubt." The court heard Ms Naish first moved into her semi-detached house in Chadacre Avenue as a teenager with her parents and, although she moved out, frequently returned as she worked there in the family's tarmac business. Moment 'UK's worst neighbour' terrorises couple in 18-month tirade of foul-mouthed abuse caught on doorbell camera She eventually moved back permanently after the death of her father in 2001, with Dr Patel and husband Vasos Vassili buying the house next door for £450,000 in 2013. The couple's barrister, Paul Wilmshurst, told the judge that the dispute began due to Ms Naish repeatedly complaining that a tap and pipe outside their house trespassed on her land. Due to her " terrorising" them with her "petty and vindictive" complaints, they felt forced to sue due to the "blight" on the property's value caused by the unresolved row, he said. At the county court, they claimed the tiny gap between the houses - created when the previous owners of their home built an extension on a previously much wider gap in 1983 - was theirs. They insisted that the boundary between the two properties was the flank wall of Ms Naish's house and not the edge of her guttering hanging above, as she claimed. 3 But after hearing the trial in 2023, Judge Stephen Hellman last year found for Dr Patel and Mr Vassili, ruling that Ms Naish's flank wall was the boundary and meaning they own the gap between the houses. However, he found against them on Ms Naish's counterclaim, under which she sought damages for damp ingress into her conservatory caused by them having installed decking above the level of her damp proof course. The judge found that, although the damp problem was already in existence, the installation of the decking screed was a 20% contribution to it, and awarded Ms Naish £1,226 damages. However, because he had found against her on who owns the gap between the houses, he ordered that she pay 65 per cent of her neighbours' lawyers' bills, amounting to about £100,000, on top of her own costs. Concluding his judgment, he said: "Now that the parties have the benefit of a judgment on the various issues that have been troubling them, I hope that tensions will subside and that they will be able to live together as good neighbours." However, Ms Naish has continued to fight and took her case to the High Court for an appeal last week, with judge Sir Anthony Mann asking why the neighbours are pressing on and demanding of Ms Naish's barrister David Mayall: "What is the point of this litigation?" He replied: "To be frank, two things: costs and the damp issue," with Dr Patel's barrister Mr Wilmshurst adding that they feel they have to fight to protect the value of their home. "It's because for many years the appellant has been making allegations about the trespassing nature of the [tap and pipe], thereby making it impossible for them to sell their house," he said. For Ms Naish, Mr Mayall argued that Judge Hellman's reasoning in finding that the boundary was the flank wall was "fatally flawed" and should be overturned, although noting a second trial in the event of a successful appeal would cost the parties "another £200,000." He said any "reasonable purchaser" looking at the houses when they were first built and conveyed in the 1950s would have assumed that the boundary was the edge of Ms Naish's guttering, giving her a few inches extra land. "The only proper conclusion that he could have come to when construing the original conveyance was that the boundary ran along the outermost part of the house as constructed, including the eaves, guttering and foundations," he said. "He most certainly could not have concluded that a reasonable person would have understood that the boundary was in such a place as to mean that part of the dwelling as constructed - the eaves, guttering and foundations - were immediately trespassing on the neighbouring land." He added: "They insisted that's where the line lay. We said it certainly doesn't lie there and we have been ordered to pay £100,000 in costs for the proceedings below. "What we say is a reasonable purchaser would say, 'I own the land over which these gutters lie.' We say there was a fence running along, which was the distance away from the wall that the flank wall of [Dr Patel's extension] is now." But for Dr Patel, who appeared in court, and Mr Vassili, who watched via a video link, Mr Wilmshurst said the appeal was a challenge to findings the judge was entitled to make on the evidence. "Overall, the judge did not overlook the contention of the appellant as to guttering, eaves and foundations: he considered it directly, evaluated it, and rejected it as being material to where the boundary was," he said. "The judge correctly held that the legal boundary was shown by the conveyance plans as running along the flank wall of [Ms Naish's house], not the outermost projection. "The appellant does not suggest that there is rule of law that means that a boundary must be synonymous with the eaves, guttering or foundations. "As shown in this case, the court received expert evidence from an experienced land surveyor that such a state of affairs is not unusual. "This was a question of fact in this case for the judge to determine." On the issue of what contribution to Ms Naish's damp her neighbours' decking screed caused, he added: "There is no basis on which it can be properly said that the judge was wrong to find the concrete screed was only responsible for 20% of the damp problems. "The judge also carried out a site view and was in the best position to form an assessment of the evidence." After a day in court, Sir Anthony reserved judgment on the appeal.
The Sun
15-05-2025
- Entertainment
- The Sun
Shock moment Storage Hunters star drives his CAR at neighbour in war over ‘communal' garden
THIS is the shocking moment a star from reality TV show Storage Hunters drove his car at a neighbour in a dispute over land. Daniel Hill, 43, was snapped on CCTV driving his BMW at the elderly woman in her 70s in the small village of Haslingfield, Cambridgeshire, on March 9 last year. 7 7 Hill has been " at war" with residents in the town after his request for permission to build a home was denied, following a dispute with neighbours. The terrifying footage begins with Hill's neighbour leaving her driveway and walking into her front garden. Then, out of nowhere, Hill's BMW appears, with the TV star driving at speed towards his stunned neighbour. Suddenly, just as Hill mounts kerb, he slams on the brakes, coming to an abrupt stop just in front of his terrified neighbour. Then, as dust rises up from the car's sudden braking, Hill exits the vehicle and appears to talk with his elderly neighbour as they walk towards her home. Controversy began when Hill had acquired a plot of "communal" land in Badcock Road, which had been gardened by a woman in her 70s and her husband for 40 years – along with a second piece of land - for £18,000 in November 2023 at an auction of assets of the original estate developer who had gone into liquidation. Hill, who appeared in all five UK series of Storage Hunters from 2014 to 2016 as a 'main buyer,' said at the time that he had 'done the deal of the century' and claimed the local residents should have ' stuck their hand in their pocket ' if they wanted the land. He later claimed the locals had been trying to drive him away since acquiring the land and accused them of 'harassing' him and 'causing criminal damage' to his property. But the residents countered, saying he had been 'terrorising' them with his heavy handed behaviour. Hill was arrested and bailed by Cambridgeshire Police in December 2023, accused of harassment, criminal damage and common assault, but was released at the beginning of March 2024 without charge. 7 7 7 However, Hill further entered controversy when he removed a silver birch on the land, which had a Tree Preservation Order, and submitted plans for a new house. Neighbours inundated Cambridge Shared Planning with letters of objection, complaining it would be 'overdevelopment of the area". They also argued it would lead to 'loss of light and overshadowing' and pose a safety risk to pedestrians and vehicles as it is on a bend. In March 2024, Hill was denied planning permission because officers said the site was of an 'insufficient size' and in an 'inappropriate location.' Planning officers said at the time the site was 'of an insufficient size and an inappropriate location to accommodate the minimum amount of development to facilitate a single dwelling that would meet the nationally described space standards. The statement added: 'The introduction of any dwelling on the site would result in an undesirable form of cramped and contrived development in a prominent location that would be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area and would give rise to harm to the amenities of neighbouring properties.' Over the last year Hill has been spotted back at the site, dumping dozens of tyres around his land to prevent people accessing it and burning hedge cuttings. HILL 'DELIBERATELY USED HIS CAR IN A THREATENING MANNER' In December 2023, Mr Hill said: 'I saw this cheap bit of land at auction. "That's how I make my money, I buy stuff cheap and try to make a profit on it. "Originally I thought it was one of those things where it would go crazy money, it's a beautiful village here. "I was watching the auction and it landed around the £5,000 to £6,000 mark and I thought, 'I've got to have some of this.'" He added: "I started bidding and got it for £12,000, obviously there are fees on top, happy days, I actually thought I'd done the deal of the century. "I was really happy with it. I come down here. I did all my research before. "I thought there's planning policy, support planning in the area, there's no TPO's, turned up here and started cutting the trees down, then wham all the villagers came out, almost like with their pitchforks and their angry faces, 'no, no, no, you can't have this land.' "I said, 'sorry I've bought it', I couldn't really understand what the problem was and ever since then they have been sour pusses. "They didn't buy it. I'm not going to buy any tears, this is not a poor area. "You've got accountants, bankers, all kids of very wealthy people here. "If they wanted the land they should have bought it." For his shocking driving behaviour, TV star Hill was found guilty of driving without due care and attention. He was given nine points on his licence and was ordered to pay a £660 fine, following his sentencing at Cambridge Magistrates' Court on May 6. PC Lazaro, from the South Cambs Neighbourhood Team, who investigated, said: 'There has been an ongoing dispute over land in Haslingfield. "Hill deliberately used his car in a threatening manner. "His driving fell far below that of a reasonable and competent driver. "It's fortunate that the victim was not crashed into and injured as a result." 7
-copy.jpeg%3Fwidth%3D1200%26height%3D800%26crop%3D1200%3A800&w=3840&q=100)
The Independent
15-05-2025
- The Independent
‘Ridiculous': Judge slams warring neighbours for £250k court fight over garden tap
A seven-year, £250,000 neighbours' row over a few inches of land, sparked by a doctor's garden tap, has been blasted as "ridiculous" by a top judge. Retiree Christel Naish and her doctor neighbour Jyotibala Patel have been fighting a bitter court war over an inches-wide strip between their houses in Ilford, east London. The row over the strip, which measures less than a foot and is too narrow even for a person to comfortably walk down, was sparked after Ms Naish complained that Dr Patel's garden tap and pipe were "trespassing" on her property. After a trial at Mayors and City County Court, a judge in 2024 ruled in Dr Patel's favour on the boundary issue, which left Ms Naish with more than £200,000 in lawyers' bills. But Ms Naish, 81, is fighting on, despite being told that the case could end up costing about £500,000 if she wins – which is more than Dr Patel paid for her house. The pensioner had been left having to fork out for 65 per cent of her neighbours' costs, amounting to around £100,000, on top of the six-figure sum she ran up herself. However, the appeal itself is costing more than £30,000, the High Court heard, and her lawyers say it could result in "another £200,000" being blown on a second trial even if she succeeds. At the High Court, senior judge Sir Anthony Mann blasted the parties for the "ridiculous" row after hearing that the tap and pipe issue which began the dispute did not even matter any more, as the tap had now been removed by Dr Patel. "Hundreds of thousands of pounds about a tap and a pipe that doesn't matter – this brings litigation into disrepute," he told the pensioner's lawyers. "You don't care about the pipe and the tap, so why does it matter, for goodness' sake, where the boundary lies? "It seems to me to be a ridiculous piece of litigation – on both sides, no doubt." Ms Naish first moved into her semi-detached house in Chadacre Avenue as a teenager with her parents, the court heard. Although she later moved out, she frequently returned as she worked from there in the family's tarmac business. She eventually moved back permanently after the death of her father in 2001. Dr Patel and husband Vasos Vassili bought the house next door in 2013 for £450,000. The couple's lawyer, Paul Wilmshurst, told the judge that the dispute began due to Ms Naish repeatedly complaining that a tap and pipe outside their house trespassed on her land. Due to her "terrorising" them with her "petty and vindictive" complaints, they felt forced to sue due to the "blight" on the property's value caused by the unresolved row, he said. At the county court, they claimed the tiny gap between the houses, created when the previous owners of their home built an extension on a previously much wider gap in 1983, was theirs. They insisted that the boundary between the two properties was the flank wall of Ms Naish's house and not the edge of her guttering hanging above, as she claimed. But after hearing the trial in 2023, Judge Stephen Hellman in 2024 found for Dr Patel and Mr Vassili, ruling that Ms Naish's flank wall was the boundary and meaning they own the gap between the houses. However, he found against them on Ms Naish's counterclaim, under which she sought damages for damp ingress into her conservatory caused by them having installed decking above the level of her damp proof course. The judge found that, although the damp problem was already in existence, the installation of the decking screed was a 20 per cent contribution to it, and awarded Ms Naish £1,226 in damages. However, because he had found against her on who owns the gap between the houses, he ordered that she pay 65 per cent of her neighbours' lawyers' bills, amounting to about £100,000, on top of her own costs. Concluding his judgment, he said: "Now that the parties have the benefit of a judgment on the various issues that have been troubling them, I hope that tensions will subside and that they will be able to live together as good neighbours." However, Ms Naish has continued to fight and took her case to the High Court for an appeal last week, with judge Sir Anthony Mann asking why the neighbours are pressing on and demanding of Ms Naish's barrister David Mayall, "What is the point of this litigation?" He replied: "To be frank, two things: costs and the damp issue," with Dr Patel's barrister Mr Wilmshurst adding that they feel they have to fight to protect the value of their home. "It's because for many years the appellant has been making allegations about the trespassing nature of the [tap and pipe], thereby making it impossible for them to sell their house," he said. For Ms Naish, Mr Mayall argued that Judge Hellman's reasoning in finding that the boundary was the flank wall was "fatally flawed" and should be overturned, although noting a second trial in the event of a successful appeal would cost the parties 'another £200,000'. He said any "reasonable purchaser" looking at the houses when they were first built and conveyed in the 1950s would have assumed that the boundary was the edge of Ms Naish's guttering, giving her a few inches of extra land. "The only proper conclusion that he could have come to when construing the original conveyance was that the boundary ran along the outermost part of the house as constructed, including the eaves, guttering and foundations," he said. "He most certainly could not have concluded that a reasonable person would have understood that the boundary was in such a place as to mean that part of the dwelling as constructed – the eaves, guttering and foundations – were immediately trespassing on the neighbouring land." He added: "They insisted that's where the line lay. We said it certainly doesn't lie there and we have been ordered to pay £100,000 in costs for the proceedings below. "What we say is a reasonable purchaser would say, 'I own the land over which these gutters lie.' We say there was a fence running along, which was the distance away from the wall that the flank wall of [Dr Patel's extension] is now." But for Dr Patel, who appeared in court, and Mr Vassili, who watched via a video link, Mr Wilmshurst said the appeal was a challenge to findings the judge was entitled to make on the evidence. "Overall, the judge did not overlook the contention of the appellant as to guttering, eaves and foundations: he considered it directly, evaluated it, and rejected it as being material to where the boundary was," he said. "The judge correctly held that the legal boundary was shown by the conveyance plans as running along the flank wall of [Ms Naish's house], not the outermost projection. 'The appellant does not suggest that there is rule of law that means that a boundary must be synonymous with the eaves, guttering or foundations. "As shown in this case, the court received expert evidence from an experienced land surveyor that such a state of affairs is not unusual. "This was a question of fact in this case for the judge to determine." On the issue of what contribution to Ms Naish's damp her neighbours' decking screed caused, he added: "There is no basis on which it can be properly said that the judge was wrong to find the concrete screed was only responsible for 20 per cent of the damp problems. "The judge also carried out a site view and was in the best position to form an assessment of the evidence." After a day in court, Sir Anthony reserved judgment on the appeal.
