But does that day have to be in court I wonder? For that is where I found myself a couple of week's ago, representing my company, Best Nest Ltd, in a boundary wall dispute with a neighbour who has refused to move the fence he erected on our land. He did it before we bought the property and since our purchase we have been negotiating with him about moving it. He has resolutely refused, stating that the fence line is representative of the party wall line, even though it is clearly not perpendicular to the brickwork which defines the meeting of the two properties, since they are terraced (and therefore conjoined). The fence is not even straight, so how this can represent the party wall line, and thus the boundary, baffles me.
After many months of rather terse interchanges, letters, emails, solicitors letters, costs, time and annoyance, I found myself in court, trying to resolve the dispute in as courteous, and professional a manner as is possible. The other side (the party for the de-fence (so true)) had written a so-called Tomlin order - in other words a fancy name for a consent order. One look at it told me it was skewed in their favour and meant we would face further costs, legal wrangles and pulling out of hair for the next few months if we did not agree in some way to their demands.
So, hugely reluctantly (and if you know me, you know I quite like a fight, particularly when the other party is so OBVIOUSLY wrong) we decided to accept the terms of the consent order, effectively allowing the other party to keep their fence where it was, and build our extension round it. Not, in my mind, a satisfactory or pleasing conclusion at all. Nevertheless, this was where we had got to, and our solicitors were already booking their escape to the Maldives for Christmas on the basis of this battle alone. Next year, it will be a Christmas staycation for them if I have anything to do with it. Which is why I self-represented.
Walking into the imposing and domineering courtroom, I was nervous, but resigned to the outcome. Regretting ever having started this challenge, and wondering whether the law would uphold fairness and justice in this private conflict between two parties. But HOORAH, HOORAY! The judge, he with hair as white and fluffy as any nativity sheep, also saw the injustice and imbalance in the order and effectively threw it out of court!
He ordered the parties (let me tell you I was already ready with the party poppers) to adjourn and discuss further. After 20 minutes we returned to the courtroom with some amended suggestions as to the timescale for further negotiation. The judge said that if we did not resolve this independently before a certain time, he would close the case. Now, you might be thinking, why would I be pleased about that? Having spent significant money on legal fees, the fence is still in situ and the extension is still not built. Well, what happened in court was that effectively a precedent was set. In throwing out the consent order, which would have allowed the party for the defence to keep the fence on our land in perpetuity without any further legal challenge from us, the judge denied the other party the automatic right to keep his fence on our land. So unless the other party proves that it is his land, we now have the right to take it back and build the extension!
Let building commence!
No comments:
Post a Comment