Our client had purchased her property following a repossession by the mortgage company. Shortly after moving in, she became increasingly frustrated by the staff working at a nearby medical practice, who were continually driving across the rear of her land to access parking at the rear of the practice's property.
During the purchase, our client was never advised of any rights of way, alleged or otherwise, over her land. To protect her property and to stop the staff from travelling over her land, she instructed a boundary surveyor to carry out a site inspection and confirm her boundary. Based on these findings, she then erected a wire fence across her boundary line to prevent unauthorised use.
Escalation of the boundary dispute
The fence triggered a strong reaction from her neighbours, who, in October 2024, instructed solicitors to send a Letter before Action (a letter which is sent before Court proceedings are filed). They alleged that the medical practice had acquired a prescriptive right of way over the rear of our client's property, based on over 20 years of continuous use.
Our client defended her position, having no knowledge of any such rights. After a couple of further letters were exchanged between the parties, the client instructed us to assist in resolving the right of way dispute.
Our involvement and initial negotiations
We began by providing a detailed letter of advice to our client on her position before corresponding with the neighbours' solicitors. On an open basis, we made it clear that our client was not prepared to remove the fence. She relied on the surveyor's findings, and we explained her concerns on her behalf, particularly given the alleged inappropriate behaviour she and her partner had experienced from the neighbours’ staff.
On a Without Prejudice Save as to Costs (‘WPSATC’) basis, we sought to negotiate to attempt to settle the matter and avoid Court proceedings. We proposed that if the fence was removed, the neighbours would pay a monthly fee for the use and maintenance of the land, as well as a contribution towards additional insurances, such as Public Liability insurance, which our client would be required to purchase. Our client’s position, as outlined in both her open letter and WPSATC letter, was rejected by the medical practice. Additionally, the Court proceedings were provided to us in draft form.
Despite our client’s willingness to compromise by way of further offers being made, including offers to move the fence two metres closer to our client’s home to allow sufficient vehicular access, the neighbour escalated matters and filed Court proceedings shortly before the Christmas break of December 2024.
Court proceedings
The medical practice filed formal proceedings in their local court, making them the claimants and the clients, the defendants in the claim. They sought both an injunction compelling our client to remove her fence and a declaration from the court confirming they had a prescriptive right of way over her land. It is key to note this was only an alleged right of way, as their evidence relied largely on a Statutory Declaration dated 2010 from a now deceased former owner of the property, meaning no further evidence could be obtained.
On reviewing the particulars of claim, we identified significant flaws in the claimant’s claim. Their claim had not been properly set out, and it was poorly drafted, and a key supporting document was missing despite this being provided in the draft Court proceedings. We wrote to the claimant's solicitors on numerous occasions, highlighting these issues and making it clear that if they continued the claim, our client would file a defence pointing out the flaws and apply for summary judgment, striking out their claim.
Despite being given the opportunity to correct their case, the claimants pressed on. We therefore prepared a summary judgment application on our client’s behalf, while they, in turn, sought to strike out our client’s defence.
Summary judgment hearing and outcome
Both summary judgment applications were listed for hearing in May 2025. Ahead of the hearing, to avoid further costs on both sides, we again attempted settlement, renewing our client’s offer to move the fence two metres back. This offer was rejected again.
We instructed a specialist business and property courts barrister (counsel) to represent our client at the hearing. During the proceedings, counsel for the claimant’s admitted their client’s pleadings were poorly drafted and sought to amend them. Our counsel successfully resisted, and the Judge refused the claimant’s request to amend.
After the Judge had digested our counsel’s skeleton argument, the Judge went on to strike out the claimant’s claim entirely, finding that the proceedings were poorly drafted, that they should have accepted our client’s offer to move back her fence by 2 meters as this would have provided more than enough space for vehicular access and that the claimant’s claim had no real prospect of success. Importantly, our client was awarded her legal costs on an indemnity basis (meaning 90-95% of her costs were awarded to her), recovering just under £16,000.
A persuading factor in the Judge making this decision was the fact that we pointed out the flaws in their case on numerous occasions, asked them to withdraw their proceedings, and had also proposed reasonable settlement offers throughout the matter. On this basis, our client was treated very favourably in relation to her legal costs.
What happened after the Court hearing
After the Court hearing, a draft court order was sent to the Judge for sealing (approval), which noted the outcome for the case and when the claimant had to pay our client’s costs.
Unfortunately, the deadline to make payment of our client’s costs passed, and no funds were received. We then had to act quickly and issue a statutory demand on the claimant, demanding that the money be paid within 21 days; otherwise, our client could have issued a winding-up petition in respect of the company.
A few days after the deadline noted in the statutory demand had passed, the costs due were finally received, and we were able to pass these to our client.
Bringing a long-running case to an end
This was a long-running neighbour dispute which began in October 2024 and finally concluded at the end of July 2025.
The ruling at the May Court hearing and eventual payment of our client’s legal costs by the claimant brought a long and stressful chapter to an end for our client, who was delighted with both the successful outcome and the recovery of her legal costs.
“This review is for Nyree Applegarth and Lauren Moult, who handled my boundary dispute with a neighbouring property. From the initial consultation to the final resolution, their expertise and responsiveness were outstanding.
Nyree was exceptionally knowledgeable about property law and boundary disputes, explaining the legal process in a way that was easy to understand.
Both Nyree and Lauren always responded promptly to my inquiries and provided clear and concise advice.
What stood out most was their proactive approach to resolving the dispute. They strongly negotiated on my behalf and explored mediation options.
The outcome of the case was a positive one, and I am very grateful for Nyree and Lauren’s dedication and hard work.
I would highly recommend Higgs LLP solicitors to anyone facing a boundary dispute.”
