Huge court bill for neighbours who wrote YouTube songs in row over ornamental squirrel

Huge court bill for neighbours who wrote YouTube songs in row over ornamental squirrel The 14-year-battle in Essex is coming to a very expensive end - Bookmark - CommentsGo to comments A "wretched" 14-year neighbours' battle over a fence, an ornamental squirrel and a YouTuber's offensive songs about the man next door has left a couple facing more than £130,000 in court bills. Philip and Denise New ended up in a court row with next door neighbours Steve and Karen Gibson after a disagreement about the fence between their Essex gardens in 2012. But in subsequent years, the simple disagreement about a few inches of land escalated into an all out war, with the Gibsons left devastated when the News removed a "sentimentally valuable" squirrel ornament from a post between the houses. Mr Gibson was also shocked to learn that Mr New had written and published on YouTube derogatory songs about him and about the battle between the two couples. One song, titled 'Neighbours', purported to offer advice on how to deal with bad neighbours and included the words: "Throw shi*t at their window, sh*t at the door/ Call him a w****r, call her a w***e." After a judge found against Mr and Mrs New at Southend County Court, they were last year ordered to pay the Gibsons about £10,000 in damages and handed bills totalling about £120,000 for the case. However, they were back in court again last week after launching an appeal against the damages amount, which if they are successful on could also massively alter the amount in costs due. In his judgment on the case at the county court, Judge Robert Duddridge described the "wretched" dispute as one which had "consumed" the neighbours' lives and was "unusually disproportionate, difficult and frustrating." Setting out the background, he said the two couples live in next door semi-detached properties in Sunnymede Close, Thundersley, Essex, with their gardens separated by a wooden fence. The Gibsons' house was previously Mrs Gibson's parents' house, but the couple also lived there during the 1980s before moving back in 2011 after inheriting it. Mr and Mrs New own and live next door in Sunnymede Close - where detached properties typically sell for about £400,000 - having bought their house in 2006. The dispute began in 2012 when Mr New replaced some fence panels, with the Gibsons complaining that it was in the wrong place and not in a straight line. The couples agreed to settle their differences outside court, with the appointment of an independent surveyor to determine the line of the boundary in 2015. But Mr and Mrs New disagreed with the line chosen by the expert and had a second opinion by another, leading to the dispute escalating into a court battle when the Gibsons sued in 2018. In 2021, a judge ruled on the case, declaring that the line chosen by the first surveyor had to be abided by and handing victory to Mr and Mrs Gibson. After a series of failed appeals, the case then moved on to Judge Duddridge for a determination of the amount in damages which the Gibsons were due for the News' fence having trespassed on their land. In his evidence, Mr Gibson, a builder with a rare disability affecting his bones, said he thought the 2015 agreement would bring "finality" to the dispute but instead the News had not accepted it and continued to trespass. Interactions with their neighbours became "hostile" and they no longer used their garden like they would have done otherwise, he claimed. He said he had "lost his heart and soul" and he and his wife had been moved to tears at times due to the conflict with Mr and Mrs New. He told the court of his upset when Mr New removed an ornamental squirrel from a post between the properties shortly after they lost an appeal in the case, before then removing the post itself with his hands and a mallet. "According to his statement, the squirrel post had been built by his parents in law, he had purchased the squirrel as a gift for Mrs Gibson and her parents during the 1980s and, for that reason, it had enormous sentimental value," said the judge. "He says that the gatepost had sentimental value, but was also of practical importance because they are no longer able to bolt their gate shut." In November 2020, one of the Gibsons' children had discovered two songs - titled 'Neighbours' and 'Magic Garden' - on YouTube and Facebook, said the judge. "The song 'Neighbours' gives advice to the listener about how to deal with bad neighbours, including: 'Throw shi*t at their window, sh*t at the door/ Call him a w*****, call her a w***e/ P*ss in their garden, till it’s quite late/ When they’re asleep, blow up their gate'," he said. "The song 'Magic Garden' describes somebody who uses walking sticks and purports to be in pain when out in public, but throws their sticks away and is miraculously pain free when in their garden and is committing benefits fraud. "Mr Gibson described how upsetting, hurtful and hateful he found this song, which he thought was clearly about him, in view of his serious and rare disability and the difficulties he has had coming to terms with it." Giving judgment on the damages assessment, Judge Duddridge rejected the Gibsons' claim to have lost the use of a "substantial" part of their garden due to the News' trespass. He said that although the trespass had prevented them fencing the garden the way they wanted and from completing its landscaping, to say they had physically lost use of a large part was wrong. However, he also rejected Mr New's claim that his "tongue in cheek" songs, although "inspired" by his interactions with his neighbours, were not actually about them. "I am satisfied that the songs 'Neighbours' and 'Magic Garden' were directly about the Gibsons," said the judge. "Although I would not use the phrase 'tongue in cheek' to describe their unpleasant and personal content, I accept that Mr New intended them to be satirical and did not intend the advice in 'Neighbours' to be actually carried out. "I also accept that they were not sent directly to Mr and Mrs Gibson or intended for their consumption. However, he posted them on public social media sites - his Facebook and Youtube accounts - and could have foreseen that they might come to their attention or be viewed by people who knew them, exposing them to ridicule, humiliation and embarrassment. "As he ended up acknowledging, their content is offensive and defamatory. I accept that the claimants, in particular Mr Gibson, found the songs deeply hurtful and embarrassing given his rare condition, and that it aggravated the unpleasantness, emotional upset and mental health issues caused by this dispute." He also rejected Mr and Mrs New's claim that they removed the squirrel and post because it was dangerous and said he was not convinced they genuinely thought the post was theirs until after their realisation that it was on their side of the boundary. "Although Mr New was able to dislodge the top half of it by hand, I do not believe that it was dangerous or unstable, or that this was their true motive for removing it," he said. "It had been in situ for about 40 years and there is no objective evidence that it had ever shown any signs of spontaneously falling over or being vulnerable to being knocked over accidentally. "I also do not accept that they really believed that they owned the squirrel and the post at any time before they realised that it was wholly or mainly on their side of the boundary, bearing in mind that it was used to secure the Gibsons' gate. "In my view, the true explanation for their actions is likely to be that they were angry at losing the appeal and decided to dismantle it in pique at their disappointment. "In my judgment it was highly unreasonable for the defendants to remove the ornamental squirrel and the squirrel post at the time and in the manner they did." Although the trespass by the News' fence was only by a "matter of inches" onto the wrong side of the line and affected a "trivial" amount of land, the Gibsons were "entitled to be compensated for the inconvenience and distress" they were caused, he said. "I consider that certain aspects of the defendants’ behaviour have been unreasonable to a sufficiently high degree to amount to high-handed, insulting or oppressive conduct justifying an award of aggravated damages. "In particular, their prolongation of the dispute and continuation of the trespass after the boundary was determined and in defiance of the parties’ agreement, the publication of the offensive and personal songs about the claimants, and the removal of the squirrel post at the time and in the manner referred to." The case reached the High Court in London last week after Mr and Mrs New launched an appeal against the £9,500 damages award they were ordered to pay. Their barrister, Paul Wilmshurst, said the amount, because it exceeded the £3,000 they offered their neighbours as settlement prior to the trial, had resulted in them also being handed a "ruinous" bill for the Gibsons' lawyers' costs. "While the overall award may be modest, its exact figure makes the difference given the ruinous costs sought by and awarded to Mr and Mrs Gibson," he said. "There was no good reason to depart from the normal position that trivial trespasses at best attract nominal damages. "The respondents have not been precluded from erecting a fence on the land that they have ownership of under the September 2015 agreement. "To this day, they have failed to erect any kind of fence." Damages relating to the removal of the squirrel post were also wrong, he argued, because it was on the News' side of the boundary as defined by the surveyor in 2015, and so belonged to them. "Whatever is affixed to the soil belongs to the soil," he said. Urging High Court judge, Mr Justice Thompsell, to overturn the damages amount, he said the News had been wrought an "injustice" by an "unjustified and unprecedented damages claim and ruinous costs over worthless, trivial land that they – there can be no dispute - handed over in 2021." But for the Gibsons, barrister Rupert Myers described the appeal as "a further disproportionate attempt to re-argue the amount of a modest, carefully reasoned award of general damages." The sum awarded was fully justified for the "inconvenience and distress of nearly seven years of continuing encroachment" suffered by the Gibsons. "The fence point was, on the judge’s own findings, 'only one component' of 'a modest award' and 'only one of a number of issues' that caused the Gibsons distress," he continued. The "grossly offensive songs" posted online by Mr New and the removal of the squirrel post at the time they did were examples of the bad conduct of the couple, he said. After a day in court, Mr Justice Thompsell decided to reserve his decision on the appeal until a later date. If Mr and Mrs New are successful and the damages award is reduced to less than the £3,000 they offered as a pre-trial settlement then it could have a major impact on who pays the six-figure costs of the case. Join our commenting forum Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies Comments