Neighbour sued me over lantern on my OWN property – but now they owe me thousands after their son sided with me

A RETIRED policewoman has won a £100,000 court fight after her neighbours sued her over a decorative lantern on her own property.

Frances Pollard and her husband Graham were dragged to court after Roger and Margaret Hunt complained that the vintage light was stopping them from sleeping in their £1million Kent home. 

4

4

4

Mr and Mrs Hunt, both 80, claimed it was interfering with their "quiet enjoyment" and took their neighbours to court in a bid to get the light categorised as an official public "nuisance".

The move could have seen Mr and Mrs Pollard facing criminal proceedings had they continued to operate it.

Justices at Folkestone Magistrates' Court found that the lantern could be perceived as "irritating, annoying and perhaps unneighbourly".

However, they ruled that the Hunts had not proved that the light was an environmental "nuisance" in law. 

The Hunt family have now been left facing a £100,000 court bill after taking their fight to London's High Court and losing.  

Mr and Mrs Hunt's' son, Jonathan Hunt, who was a party to the action and attended the hearing, said after court: "I told my parents not to do this."

The High Court heard that the neighbours - who have a history of clashing in the past - went to war after the Pollards moved the lantern from the side of their £550,000 home to the back, lighting it up in December 2021. 

The Pollards had at that point not used the lantern for roughly nine years. 

Ian Rees Philips, for the Hunt family, told Mr Justice Bourne that the former PC and her husband turned on the light on December 23, drawing immediate complaints from their neighbours.

The Hunt family told them that the light - which sits on a bracket 4m above the ground and about 5m from the back bedroom windows of the Hunts' home - was causing a "nuisance".

But the Pollards - having inserted a small plastic shield to block the direct glare of the light onto their neighbours' windows - replied the next day in an email, stating: "We don't consider that the light causes a nuisance....we reserve the right to switch the light on or off at any time".

The Pollards then operated the lantern "continuously all night" for the next 16 nights, on a "dusk until dawn basis of around 4pm to 8am every day", the barrister said.

He added: "It was on throughout the whole night and the early hours.

"Mr and Mrs Hunt had to have their curtains drawn and had their room lit up at night, meaning they had difficulty sleeping and were regularly being kept awake at night.

"Despite the blanking shield... light was still cast directly onto their property's windows on the second floor and was causing sky glow and excessive light pollution onto their property and the surrounding area"

A second bigger shield was installed, but the Hunts were still unhappy and took their case to Folkestone Magistrates' Court.

They applied under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to get the light classified as a statutory nuisance, meaning the Pollards would have to stop lighting it or potentially face criminal proceedings for breaching an order not to.

However, the justices rejected the Hunts' case after a three day trial, saying they had not put forward sufficient evidence to prove their case.

I told my parents not to do this."

Jonathan Hunt

Appealing, the Hunts asked Mr Justice Bourne to clarify whether the magistrates had taken the wrong legal approach to the case when dismissing their claim.

Their barrister, Mr Rees Philips, argued that the magistrates had wrongly relied on the evidence of the electrical engineer who measured the light output of the lantern at ground level.

Mr Phillips pointed out that it actually projected its light upwards and an accurate reading would have to be taken from the Hunts' home or another high level area.

He also said that the justices should have gone on to find that a nuisance was being committed after coming to the conclusion that the light shining all night was "irritating, annoying and perhaps....unneighbourly".

But Matthew Withers, for Mr and Mrs Pollard, said that the magistrates had been well aware of where the light readings submitted by the engineer had been taken from, but had rejected the case anyway.

"The magistrates were not wrong. It was a conclusion open to them based on the facts," he said.

Mr Justice Bourne agreed and dismissed the appeal.

He said: "The question was not if there was a departure from guidance, but whether there was a statutory nuisance.

"The magistrates simply identified a lack of sufficient evidence. No more was needed in this case.

"The appellants have not shown that the magistrates made any error of law and this appeal will be dismissed."

Mr and Mrs Hunt were ordered to pay most of the costs of the appeal, having already had to foot the cost of the trial as the losing party.

The judge ordered that they pay £18,000 of their neighbours' costs of the appeal, with their bills totalling £26,000 for last week's hearing.

Lawyers outside court confirmed that the total costs of the trial and appeal was over £100,000.

Mr and Mrs Hunt were not at court for the appeal.

4