Artisan potter wins bitter £300k four-year battle with painter

Movie channels Music channels Sport channels

An artisan potter has emerged victorious after a bitter four-year boundary dispute with a duck-loving painter over a narrow stream dividing their gardens.

David Wright has won a heated battle – which amounted to £300,000 in court costs – with his neighbour, NHS administrator, Dee Narga in the quaint village of Thrussington, Leicestershire.

The potter was always under the assumption the 4-ft wide brook that his children used to paddle in was part of his garden, but that reality was shattered when his new neighbour laid claim to the babbling brook between the two properties.

Painter Ms Narga, who shelled out £265,000 for the former pig farm with planning permission to convert it into a large house, said she bought ‘Brook Barn’ on the assumption that the stream was within the boundary of her garden.

The NHS administrator proceeded to tear down an existing fence on her side of the water in a determined bid to take ownership of the stream, encroaching on Mr Wright’s peaceful garden which served as a place for ‘slow, quiet, rhythmic and a time for contemplation’.

However the Court of Appeal has now ruled in his favour following the heated four-year long feud which saw the duck-loving painter erect a new boundary on the opposing side of the bank to the fury of her neighbours.

Artisan potter David Wright (left) has won the war with his duck-loving painter neighbour Dee Narga (right) over the 4ft wide brook between their homes

Painter Dee Narga (Pictured) said she bought ‘Brook Barn’ on the assumption that the stream was within the boundary of her garden

Mr Wright has long considered the brook (pictured) as part of his garden and says his children used to paddle it in when they were growing up

Pictured is the stream running between Ms Narga’s barn and Mr Wright’s cottage in Thrussington. The Wrights and the Claphams have now won the £300k court battle

After Ms Naga ‘secured Brook Barn physically’, Mr Wright, his curtain maker wife Laura and their physiotherapist neighbour Amanda Clapham as well as her husband Tony were adamant the river formed part of their gardens.

The neighbours soon became embroiled in ‘heated discussions’, leading to a ‘bitter’ court dispute between Ms Narga on one side and the Wrights and the Claphams on the other.

Artisan potter and duck-loving painter at war over who owns stream dividing their gardens

Ms Narga. who shares pictures of her two ducks ‘Larry’ and ‘Wanda’ on social media, was ruled owner of the stream in two court clashes.

However the Court of Appeal has since handed the victory to the two couples ruling that their ‘peaceful’ adverse possession of the brook and land on both its banks had trumped Ms Narga’s ‘paper title’ to ownership of the stream.

In his judgement, Lord Justice Peter Jackson criticised the £300,000 cost of the fight over the tiny waterway, saying the disastrous row could have been avoided had Ms Narga talked to her new neighbours before buying Brook Barn.

The six figure sum was a result of court costs including expert witnesses and lawyer fees.

He said: ‘The combined legal costs of the trial and two appeals arising from this unfortunate boundary dispute now exceed £300,000. How did the dispute come about?

‘Ms Narga could have consulted the neighbouring landowners before, rather than after, purchasing Brook Barn. Had she done so, this boundary dispute may not have arisen, and much trouble and expense might have been avoided.’

David Wright is a potter who enjoys making ceramics in the studio in his garden. He is pictured with his wife Laura (right)

Ms Narga (pictured) has been ruled owner of the stream in two court clashes so far

Thrussington is a small village which originated as a Viking settlement on the western side of the River Wreake, between Leicester and Melton Mowbray.

It is mentioned in the Domesday Book of 1086, and the name means ‘Thursten’s town or settlement’.

The village has won local fame for its annual Thrussington in Bloom events, as well as its traditional skittles competitions on the village green.

EXCLUSIVE
Neighbours at war head back to court over order to remove ‘nuclear submarine base’ cameras

The disputed brook rises near the ancient mediaeval ruins of Thrussington Grange monastery and passes between the backs of the neighbours’ gardens before emptying into the River Wreake.

However the neighbours idyllic peace in the village of 500 residents was shattered when the boundary war erupted, continuing for several years.

The Court of Appeal heard that until Ms Narga bought Brook Barn in 2020 the Wrights and the Claphams had treated the brook and both its banks as part of their gardens ‘for decades,’ having moved in respectively in 1984 and 1996.

Mr Wright, who spends his days creating Japanese-style ceramics in his studio in the garden, gave evidence during the first clash at Leicester County Court last year that his children played regularly in the brook.

Before Ms Narga bought it, Brook Barn had been offices and before that a piggery, and the two couples told the court they had always thought their gardens ended on its north side, where a steep bank rises up to Brook Barn.

The Claphams had maintained a patch to the north of the stream as a wildlife garden, with havens ‘for hibernating hedgehogs, toads and invertebrates’.

Mr Wright and his wife Laura say the ground where Ms Narga erected a new fence forms part of their garden and the garden of their physiotherapist neighbour Amanda Clapham and husband Tony. Pictured is the Wrights’ house (right) and the Claphams’ house (left)

But when duck-loving painter Ms Narga bought the property in 2020, she hired contractors to start clearing vegetation on both sides of the brook and, after sending letters to her neighbours claiming the land, she began erecting a fence on the south side to cut off the two couples’ access to the stream.

That resulted in a court injunction halting work on the fence until the ownership dispute could be settled in court.

EXCLUSIVE
Husband and wife in battle with neighbours ‘after they blocked bridleway through their driveway’

Two previous court clashes saw Ms Narga ruled as the legal owner, despite a judge establishing her neighbours had ‘squatters’ rights’ over the brook and the unclaimed land immediately north and south of it years before the painter arrived.

The judge found that, because the two couples had not registered their adverse possession of the land and their use of it not ‘obvious,’ their claims to it were superseded by Ms Narga’s once her property was registered.

But Lord Justice Nugee in his ruling today said the brook and its banks had been effectively removed from the title of Brook Barn by the two couples establishing squatters rights long before its title was first registered in 2003.

‘That meant that the registered title to Brook Barn did not include the disputed land in 2003; and if it did not include it in 2003, it did not include it in 2020 when it was transferred to Ms Narga,’ Justice Jackson said.

‘The upshot is that Ms Narga has no registered title to the disputed land. She has no other claim to it, and there is therefore nothing to displace the possessory title that the Wrights and the Claphams had acquired by 2003, and still have today, to the disputed land.

‘The effect of 12 years’ adverse possession was to re-draw the boundary between adjoining properties so that it reflected the position on the ground rather than the position as it was when the land was first conveyed out of common ownership.

Pictured is Book Barn, the property which Ms Narga bought in 2020 before starting a bitter war

‘Indeed I regard this as one of the great virtues of the doctrine of adverse possession as it applied to unregistered land,’ he added.

‘Once neighbours had been in undisputed possession of their respective properties for 12 years, that gave them ownership of the land they each possessed, with the result that the boundary between their lands would follow the de facto position on the ground without the need for anyone to go back to the historic conveyances by which their properties were first separated.

‘The practical effect was to favour the claims of those who had long been in peaceful possession of land over those who had, or arguably had, a mere paper title.

EXCLUSIVE
Neighbours at war after couple builds 10ft ‘church’ window that looks right into bedroom of family next door as furious locals blast ‘monstrosity’

‘That, I think, tended to reduce the number of boundary disputes, which all too often arouse great passions but usually cost far more than the property in issue is worth.’

Agreeing, Lord Justice Newey said: ‘It seems to me that the Claphams and Wrights had acquired title to the disputed land by adverse possession before Brook Barn was first registered.

‘Although its title plan appeared to show the disputed land as part of Brook Barn, the plan depicted only general boundaries and did not result in Brook Barn gaining any of the disputed land.

‘Ms Narga’s purchase of Brook Barn gave her no more than her vendor had.’

Lord Justice Peter Jackson added criticism of the cost of the fight and laid the blame for it at Ms Narga’s door.

He said: ‘The combined legal costs of the trial and two appeals arising from this unfortunate boundary dispute now exceed £300,000. How did the dispute come about?

‘The purchase of Brook Barn took place during the first Covid lockdown. Even so, Ms Narga could have consulted the neighbouring landowners before, rather than after, purchasing Brook Barn.

‘Had she done so, this boundary dispute may not have arisen, and much trouble and expense might have been avoided.’

Ms Narga successfully argued in the two previous court battles that, under the Land Registration Act 2002, her purchase of Brook Barn ‘reset’ the boundary to that shown on her Land Registry map, wiping out her neighbours’ rights to the land, despite the fact they had satisfied the requirements to gain title to it before 2003 by adverse possession, also known as ‘squatters’ rights.’

On the roof of Ms Narga’s house are two ducks, named by her as “Larry and Wanda” in a social media post

She was able to lay claim to the land under the 2002 Act because it had not been maintained sufficiently so that it was ‘obvious’ on a ‘reasonably careful’ inspection that it was occupied, her lawyers said.

‘In 2020, Mrs Narga purchased a property known as Brook Barn…she believed that it included a brook,’ said her barrister Jonathan Gale during the appeal.

‘She inspected the property several times prior to purchase and satisfied herself that it included the eponymous brook.

‘She made a reasonably careful inspection and saw no obvious sign of occupation by any third party.’

Neighbours’ row which began over borrowed lawnmower spirals into conflict as each build high fences

Judge Hedley, in Leicester County Court, whilst finding the two couples had satisfied the legal requirements for adverse possession of the land many years ago, went on to rule that it was not obvious at the time Ms Narga bought it that the land was being used as part of someone else’s garden.

In those circumstances, the purchase reset the boundary, with the dividing line being south of the brook, cutting off access for the Wrights and the Claphams.

‘The occupation by the claimants of the north bank was not ‘obvious’…on a reasonably careful inspection of the land,’ he said. ‘The intention to possess must be made plain.’

He said the amount of land in dispute was ‘comparatively modest,’ but that a ‘great deal of upset has been caused by this dispute and a great deal of energy, time and money has been expended upon it.’

He added: ‘I have no doubt that emotions have run high on both sides and that there is bitterness and mistrust which has arisen.’

Successfully challenging Judge Hedley’s ruling at the Court of Appeal, Mr Morris, for the Wrights and Claphams, had argued they ‘had for decades used the disputed land as part of their gardens, cultivating and maintaining it’.

They continued: ‘The effect of the judge’s decision is that Ms Narga, who arrived on the scene only in mid-2020, is not entitled to land long in the rightful possession of the appellants’.

The amounts in costs each side will have to pay for the dispute will be decided at another court hearing at a later date.