We’ve been slapped with £200k bill after neighbour row over height of hedge turned village into ‘battlefield’
A COUPLE have been given a £200k court bill after a neighbour row over a hedge turned the village into a “battlefield”.
Property boss Mark Randolph Dyer and wife Clare, both 58, claim their lives were turned upside down by four of the locals in the sleepy hamlet of Brook, Surrey.
Rows over proposed changes to the Dyers’ £2.6m property saw the area turn into a “battlefield”, London’s High Court heard.
In a case that has since been thrown out by a judge, the multimillionaire couple claimed that they were targeted by local GP Dr Andrew Cross, 63, as well as a trio of pensioners: 81-year-old David Small and his wife Susan, 78, as well as Patricia Webb, 77.
They alleged the group made “spurious” objections to their planning applications, made rude comments about Mrs Dyer’s outfits and even incited another resident to set their fence on fire.
The Dyers claimed that the quartet had “influenced” David Baker, 79, to torch the fence between his property and the Dyers’.
Issues were first sparked when more than 50 planning applications were submitted by the Dyers to make changes to their home and to two nearby cottages they own.
They said they had been made the targets of a “malicious campaign of vilification and harassment” after revealing they wanted a “permanent helipad” in their field back in 2007.
Following years of battles, the “menacing gang” of neighbours were taken to court in May this year where they were sued for £1.3m in damages.
The Dyers also sought an immediate and temporary harassment injunction.
The group denied all of the allegations.
And last month, Judge Dexter Dias KC refused to grant the Dyers an interim injunction.
He said there was “no realistic prospect” of them proving harassment to a degree that would warrant an immediate injunction.
He added how there was also no evidence that the four had abused the planning process which resulted in applications not being approved.
And now Judge Dias has ordered the Dyers to pay a £200,00 bill to the courts after finding their case was “flawed and misconceived”.
He said: “The court is satisfied that the application for relief was fatally flawed and bound to fail – and thus totally without merit.”
Judge Dias did however stop short of slapping a “civil restraint order” on the Dyers – which would have blocked them from pursuing their case any further.
He said: “I have decided that it’s not appropriate.
“Another court may have taken a different view, but I have considered the totality of the evidence.
“I am satisfied that their application was misconceived, rather than intrinsically malicious.”
On top of that, the claims over Mr Baker and the alleged fence torching had “no evidential basis” and “amounted to encouraging or inciting an act of arson”.
He added: “The court found there was no credible evidence of influencing Mr Baker to set fire to the hedge and there was no other credible evidence of influencing Mr Baker.”