A millionaire hotel construction boss has claimed victory in an acrimonious six-year row with an 80-year-old shepherdess neighbour over gates she erected to keep her sheep penned in.

Peter Leonard, 42, and wife Kelly, 46, sued Muriel Whiston after complaining the feature blocked Mrs Leonard from reversing her Land Rover out of the drive of their £900,000 farmhouse.

They also claimed the Charolais sheep breeder was ‘abusive and aggressive’ to visitors and delivery drivers at the four-bedroom 33-acre property in Baschurch, Shropshire and complained of a sign insisting the gates be kept shut ‘at all times’.

Ms Whiston denied interfering with the right of way and countersued in a bid to make her neighbours keep a door leading to their barn shut, to prevent rescue animals they housed from spilling out and mixing with her flock.

Judge Sarah Watson at Birmingham County Court ruled in September 2024 that the shepherdess’s sign was unreasonable but did not find her behaviour ‘abusive’ or that the gate should be removed.

Ms Whiston was in turn refused an injunction to force her neighbours to keep their barn door shut.

Both sides appealed parts of the ruling at the High Court and the row raged on.

But now Mr Justice Michael Green has dismissed both parties’ challenges and upheld a ruling that the elderly shepherdess must pay the legal costs of the case – which are likely to run into six figures.

Millionaire hotel construction boss Peter Leonard and wife Kelly, pictured, have claimed victory in an acrimonious six-year row with an 80-year-old shepherdess neighbour 

The pair sued Muriel Whiston after complaining the gates she put up to keep her sheep penned in blocked Mrs Leonard from reversing her Land Rover out of the drive of their £900,000 house

He said: ‘It is most regrettable that this matter could not be resolved out of court and that there has been so much time and money spent in relation to this dispute, quite out of proportion to the issues at stake.’

Mr Leonard – director of Dublin-based MM Capital – bought the property in Baschurch, which was previously owned by Ms Whiston’s family, for around £900,000 in 2017.

He and his wife house rescue animals, including rabbits, at their home and the court heard that when the couple moved in there was already a gate across the track to stop Ms Whiston’s sheep escaping but it was often open.

The neighbours got on well until 2020 when the couple complained over text that Ms Whiston was keeping the gate shut after her sheep had moved into the fields.

It was claimed the Leonards could not reverse their £84,000 Land Rover Defender 130 out of the driveway and had to conduct a ‘multi-point turning manoeuvre’.

The same allegedly applied to delivery drivers who would ‘dangerously reverse all the way down the track’.

The court heard Ms Whiston then considered plans for a less ‘inconvenient’ gate in a different spot but by August 2020 she ‘just went ahead and put up a new gate’. 

It was accompanied by a sign reading: ‘Farm Livestock. Please keep gate shut at all times.’

This kicked off the neighbour feud and despite the installation being replaced with a new set of double gates in 2021 slightly further back along the track, the row ended up in court.

Ms Whiston denied interfering with the right of way and insisted she was within her rights to ‘politely’ tell delivery drivers and visitors the gate should only be opened when necessary and needed to be shut afterwards. 

The judge in 2024 said the gates could remain but the sign should be replaced with one reading: ‘Please shut gate after use to prevent the escape of farm livestock.’

The gate pictured dividing the road at the top of the aerial image. The gate has been allowed to stay but Ms Whiston has had to change the sign on it and pay legal costs

He also banned the shepherdess or her staff from telling delivery drivers or visitors not to use the track beyond the gate.

In the High Court, she appealed the finding there had been ‘substantial interference’ with the couple’s right of way, saying she had been found not to have been ‘abusive’ to visitors.

But dismissing her appeal, Mr Justice Green said: ‘The judge actually found in Ms Whiston’s favour as to whether she was abusive or aggressive, but ended up concluding that she can “on her own admission be forthright and she does not mince her words”.’

He also threw out her appeal over the Leonards’ barn door being left open and refused the Leonards’ cross appeal bid for the shepherdess’s gates to be left open at all times.

The judge also refused Ms Whiston’s appeal against having to pay the costs of the case, adding the couple were ‘clearly the winners in this case’.