A 76-year-old woman is facing the prospect of selling her home following a legal dispute with her neighbor over a fence. Jenny Field is potentially looking at selling her residence to cover a £113,000 legal expense after a disagreement with neighbor Pauline Clark.
Clark, aged 64, took Field to civil court, alleging that Field had shifted her boundary fence by a foot onto Clark’s property when replacing a broken fence in June 2020. The dispute, which unfolded in a cul-de-sac in Hamworthy, Poole, Dorset, led to an extended and costly legal battle over the property line.
After the fence was reconstructed during the pandemic, Field hired workers to dismantle it in an attempt to reclaim what she believed was her lost land. In response, Clark filed legal action in February 2021, citing damage, theft, and trespass.
In December 2022, Clark emerged victorious in court, with Field instructed to pay a legal bill totaling £14,000. This amount included £11,800 for fence damage and a retaining wall to Clark, along with £2,120 for Field’s legal expenses. Despite this ruling, Field chose to contest the decision, resulting in her legal costs escalating to £113,266 as she initiated multiple court cases. A civil restraint order was imposed on Field due to the excessive amount of documentation she submitted to the court.
District Judge Ross Fentem remarked on the excessive correspondence, suggesting it could be viewed as vexatious. Among the legal documents submitted by Field was a claim for £500,000 in damages, alleging that Clark engaged in “sham litigation” and accusing the court system of five years of mistreatment.
Consequently, Field has been given three months by a judge at Bournemouth County Court to raise the necessary funds to settle the debt, or her bungalow, purchased for £270,000 in 2016, will be sold. Field acknowledged that she will have to list her three-bedroom home for sale.
Field’s absence at the court hearing was noted, and the case proceeded in her absence. Representing Clark, Anna Curtis indicated that Field showed no intention of paying the debt and emphasized that an order for sale was the final option.
Curtis mentioned that there was sufficient equity in Field’s property to cover the debts and enable her to find alternative accommodation. She stated that an order for sale was the only way to conclude the matter and allow everyone to move forward.
District Judge Fentem supported the decision for an order of sale, expressing doubts about Field’s willingness to settle without such an order. He emphasized the need for closure in the dispute and the importance of all parties moving on from the lengthy legal battle.
Following the conclusion of the case, Field admitted that she would need to sell her home as she lacked the funds to meet the fees.