Judge's stark warning over boundary rows

Lord Justice Mummery, sitting at the Court of Appeal in London, warned that such disputes were potentially "ruinous" in financial and human terms for both sides.

He said: "Everybody agrees that if at all possible, disagreements between neighbours about rights of way, boundaries or whatever should be settled without ever going near a court."

The judge added: "In my view, professional advisers have a duty to warn their clients at an early stage about the downside of neighbour litigation, even for a successful party."

If a case went to court it did not always end with the trial as appeals were possible: "What is certain is that, at the end of the day, one of the parties will lose and will usually finish up fixed with an order to pay very considerable legal costs.

"That is not good for the losing party or for the prospect of harmonious relations between neighbours who continue to live next door to each other after the case is over."

Lord Justice Mummery, who was giving a ruling with two other judges in "unfortunate litigation" in a right of way dispute in Shropshire, added: "The cost and stress of a court case will often result in the further deterioration of already damaged relationships.

"The parties might be horrified to discover that the litigation has blighted their properties as well as their lives."

Sometimes neighbour disputes were trivial but, the judge said: "Even then they are potentially ruinous, in financial and human terms, for both sides."

The judge made his comments over a dispute between widow Susan Wilkinson and Frederick Farmer, neighbours at Rocks Green, near Ludlow, who "have fallen out about the precise width of an express right of way".

In their ruling, the judges allowed an appeal by Mrs Wilkinson reinstating a previous decision in her favour.