The ‘school bully’ gardener who sued over an apple tree that kept falling into her neighbor’s Surrey cottage garden and causing her to sue was ordered to pay the neighbour £200,000.
Apple tree owner Antoinette Williams’ assertions that Barbara Pilcher “manufactured” evidence against her in order to obtain the bumper judgement were rejected by a High Court judge.
The two fought in court after developing a rift over a number of concerns, including the fact that Mrs. Williams’ tree regularly dumped hundreds of decaying apples onto Mrs. Pilcher’s lawn.
Mrs. Pilcher, who had previously undergone wasp sting treatment in the hospital, claimed that the insects drawn to the fruit made her feel “like a prisoner” inside her house and that she was unable to use the bottom of her garden.
She filed a lawsuit, accusing Mrs. Williams of engaging in a campaign of “creepy” harassment throughout the conflict, and she was successful in doing so last October when county court judge Recorder Lawrence Cohen QC found in her favour.
The matter was heard by the High Court last week, where Mrs. Williams attempted to have the decision overturned by alleging that her neighbour had “fabricated” evidence during the five-day trial last year.
The gardener, who is a member of the Dunsfold and Hascombe Horticultural Society and has received awards for her flowers, now faces having to pay out around £200,000 in damages and legal fees after a High Court judge, Mr. Justice Soole, denied her request for a fresh trial.
The court heard that Mrs. Williams moved into the three-bedroom, £500,000 Farleigh Cottage, which is next to Mrs. Williams’ $600,000 Frensham Cottage in Dunsfold, near Godalming, Surrey, approximately 40 years ago.
However, tension quickly developed between the two women over a number of issues, including the location and condition of a garden fence, Mrs. Pilcher’s usage of a right-of-way down the side of her neighbor’s house, apples that had fallen from the tree, and Mrs. Williams’ stinky compost container.
Oliver Newman, Mrs. Pilcher’s attorney, said in court last year that Mrs. Pilcher had to act independently when Mrs. Williams refused to cut down her neighbor’s tree.
In response, Mrs. Williams made a “barrage of allegations,” which, in combination with past occurrences, according to Mrs. Pilcher, “caused her to fear confrontation” with her neighbour.
Recorder Cohen granted Mrs. Pilcher compensation for harassment at the conclusion of the Central London County Court trial after she had testified that it had made her “dread going home.”
Various instances related to the campaign included Mrs. Williams regularly looking through Mrs. Pilcher’s windows, “tracking” her arrivals and departures, and “standing and watching.”
The judge described Mrs. Williams’ behaviour as “totally bizarre and unpleasant” and added that the campaign of watching had “consistently caused concern and anxiety to Mrs. Pilcher and her family.”
He listened to Mrs. Pilcher’s complaint that her neighbour had been purposely making loud phone calls in her garden so that she could hear them, accusing Mrs. Pilcher of having mental health issues.
The charges were refuted by Mrs. Williams, but the court acknowledged that they took place, saying that the alleged behaviour “reminds me rather of bullying behaviour by school pupils aiming to cause grief and exclude one of their number.”
The court remarked that during the trial, the argument over the tree was settled between the neighbours, with Mrs. Williams agreeing “to have the tree properly clipped such that it is well away from the boundary.”
Neil Vickery, who was Mrs. Williams’ attorney in the High Court, claimed the trial judge had made a number of mistakes that led to an “unjust” decision and a hefty costs bill, both of which were “big issues” for Mrs. Williams.
The judge concluded that Mrs. Pilcher was a more credible witness than Mrs. Williams overall, but the barrister claimed that the judge did not give enough consideration to the evidence suggesting that Mrs. Pilcher had “fabricated” a significant portion of her story.
In support of her claim that Mrs. Williams had blocked a right of way next to her house, Mrs. Pilcher had shown a number of images demonstrating the obstruction.
However, he claimed that metadata in the pictures demonstrated that Mrs. Pilcher must have moved the objects to obstruct the doorway because they were missing in one shot and then reappeared moments later.
He informed Mr. Justice Soole, “One can see there is nothing blocking the right of way, but another – taken shortly after that – there was an impediment across it with fencing panels.”
“Our argument is that those images, taken by Mrs. Pilcher, demonstrated behaviour by Mrs. Pilcher that, taken together, demonstrated that she was impeding the right of way herself in order to strengthen her case and then lying about it in court,” says the firm.
“The judge didn’t handle that very well.”
The judge would have needed to rule on this apparent fabrication of an obstruction in order to determine whether or not Mrs. Pilcher was credible in his opinion.
She was asked about it, but she didn’t clearly respond.
The lawyer further objected that Mrs. Pilcher had provided only 30 minutes of the six years’ worth of CCTV footage from the residences to support her claim that her neighbour had been “watching” her.
He claimed that rather than being part of a larger campaign, some of the episodes the judge cited to establish a “course of harassment” may equally be seen as singular occurrences that were connected to specific disagreements over the fence or parking privileges.
Additionally, he claimed that the decision that Mrs Williams should bear 75% of the case’s overall costs was incorrect because an accusation of carelessness about the entry of damp into Mrs. Pilcher’s home had been rejected.
After a full day of testimony, Mr. Justice Soole rejected Mrs. Williams’ request for a new trial, stating that none of her reasons had a chance of overturning the decision.
The high bar for appeals based on disputes with factual conclusions or the use of a judge’s discretion, he added, is a special issue the appeal faces.
“I’m fairly satisfied that none of these issues addressed have a real chance of success,” the speaker said.
Mrs. Williams will now be required to pay £12,000 in damages, 75% of the £243,000 in costs associated with the initial trial, as well as her legal fees associated with her unsuccessful appeal.