Couple lose £1.3M fight against ‘menacing gang’ of neighbours after claiming they ‘spy on them and yell insults’
A COUPLE have lost a £1.3 million legal fight against a “menacing” gang of neighbours who they say are making their lives hell.
Mark and Clare Dyer, both 58, claimed that other residents in their “truly beautiful” village “spy” on their home and hurl insults at them.
The pair say that the sleepy hamlet of Brook, Surrey, has become a “battlefield” amid neighbour rows over proposed changes to their property.
They claim that they were targeted by local GP Dr Andrew Cross, 63, as well as a trio of pensioners: 81-year-old David Small and his wife Susan, 78, as well as Patricia Webb, 77.
This allegedly included making “spurious” objections to their planning applications, making rude comments about Mrs Dyer’s outfits and even inciting another resident to set their fence on fire.
Disputes have centred on the more than 50 planning applications the couple have submitted for their home and two nearby cottages they own, including the addition of razor wire to their fence in 2020.
The Dyers sued for over £1 million in damages and an injunction on the “harassment”.
Their legal team told the High Court that the couple had been subjected to a “personal vendetta” from their neighbours.
Examples of the alleged harassment put forward by the claimants included one of the neighbours chatting to Mrs Dyer without invitation in a pub in 2003 and a “tirade” allegedly launched by Mrs Small over the razor wire.
In response, Amy Proferes, the barrister representing the Dr Cross, told the court: “They seek to frame every action or comment by any of the four as part of a coordinated campaign and the defendants – three of whom are elderly – as a menacing ‘gang’.”
Ms Proferes also slammed the harassment claim as a “misconceived attempt to litigate village politics and perceived insults”.
Judge Dexter Dias KC handed the fuming couple an initial loss in the ongoing case today by refusing to grant an immediate injunction.
He said: “Village life in England is one of the glories of this country, but a different side of its underbelly is on view in this case.
“While it’s said that an English person’s home is their castle, here it’s become in some ways a battlefield.”
However, he did stress that his ruling is not “final” and the judge who rules on the full case may take a different view.
After the hearing, lawyers for the four neighbours said that the judgment showed “the importance of the fundamental rights of freedom of expression, assembly and association in a democratic society”.
They added: “Our clients are delighted that their rights have for the moment been protected by the decision.”
The cost of the case is already over £320,000 with the full hearing, which will determine who pays the bills, set to open at a later date.