‘Neighbour from hell’ who chopped down shared hedge to make her garden flowerbed 2ft bigger LOSES 6-year court battle

A 'NEIGHBOUR from hell' who chopped down a shared hedge to make her garden two feet bigger has lost a six-year court battle. Tersia Van Zyl and her husband Stiaan were taken to court by Peter Walker-Smith over the gardening fall-out and were forced to pay £27,000. The mum hacked at a hedge that separated her garden from Mr Walker-Smith's so she could 'improve her flowerbed'. Mr Walker-Smith - who is a corporate treasure for Imperial Brands, who make Rizla and Golden Virginia - lives below the married couple in Claygate, Surrey.

Each apartment has a small garden, which delighted Mrs Van Zyls as she was excited to design the space. After removing the holly hedge, she put a fence in its place instead - enraging Mr Walker-Smith, who sued the couple in March 2023. He said the couple had no right to remove the hedge as it wasn't theirs. Judge Alan Saggerson agreed with the disgruntled resident and called the move a "spiteful unilateral action".

He ordered them to pay £27,000 court bill, but the Van Zyls continued to fight it at the High Court. But top judge Mr Justice Marcus Smith rejected their appeal and ordered them to pay the eyewatering bill which consists of £2,200 damages and £25,000 in lawyers' fees. Mr Walker-Smith said the final court bill could be as much as £50,000. The Tobacco worker said that he'd asked the couple not to cut it down but his pleas fell on deaf ears.

Mrs Van Zyl told the judge: "I love gardening, I was excited. "The hedge was consuming more or less a third of my flowerbed that I wanted to use in a different way.". Barrister Jonathan Wills pointed out that the couple had removed the foliage but had put the new fence up on Mr Walker-Smith's side of the boundary - resulting in them taking 2ft of his garden. He told the judge: "This isn't the biggest land grab in the world, but in a garden that is triangular, it does make a difference.".

Mrs Van Zyl called Mr Walker-Smith a "neighbour from hell" who had ruined the "enjoyment" of her new family home. "This was my first property, where I got married, where my children were born," she said. But Mr Walker-Smith argued that it was Mrs Van Zyl who was the "neighbour from hell.". Barrister Lina Mattsson argued that the decision ignored a lease plan and provided measurements. "The key feature of this plan is you do have measurements," she told Mr Justice Marcus Smith.

"The authorities say you should give more weight to the plan than just saying it's part of a puzzle. "The judge said the fact his findings may not precisely correspond with the plan is neither here nor there. "But they're wildly off. There's no resemblance at all to the measurements. The measurements have just been ignored.". She argued: "There's nothing in the lease at all about how shared ownership would be dealt with.".