Broadcast The Lastest News

A gardener slammed as a “school bully” has been ordered to pay £200,000 to her neighbour with a wasp allergy after rotten fruit from her tree attracted the little dangers to her home.

Antoinette Williams was taken to court by her Surrey neighbour Barbara Pilcher as her 40-foot tree left hundreds of rotting apples on Mrs Pilcher’s lawn, attracting wasps which put her at risk of attacks.

In a case heard in court last year, Ms Williams was ruled to be “vindictive” and “creepy” in a campaign of harassment towards her neighbour in Dunsfold, near Godalming.

Mrs Pilcher claimed Mrs Williams – a member of the Dunsfold and Hascombe Horticultural Society – plagued her by repeatedly staring at her through her windows, failing to prune the apple tree and by keeping a large smelly compost bin at the bottom of her garden adjoining her own property.

Her barrister Oliver Newman said that Mrs Pilcher had been unable to use the bottom of her garden and felt like “a prisoner in her own home” while family members stopped going to visit as the feud with her neighbour intensified.

Following a five-day trial, Judge Lawrence Cohen QC ruled in favour of Mrs Pilcher, comparing the gardener to a “school bully” for her “disgraceful” behaviour and hitting her with a costs and damages bill of around £200,000.

Last week, the case went to the High Court, where Mrs Williams tried to overturn the judgement, accusing her neighbour of “fabricating” evidence during the five-day trial last year.

But the gardener – who has won prizes for her flowers – now faces having to pay out about £200,000 in damages and lawyers’ bills after High Court judge, Mr Justice Soole, rejected her bid for a new trial.

During the day-long hearing Neil Vickery, representing Mrs Williams, argued the previous trial judge had made a series of errors, resulting in an “unjust” ruling.

He added the judge had found as a whole Mrs Pilcher was more reliable as a witness than Mrs Williams – but had not given enough thought to evidence that Mrs Pilcher had “fabricated” a key part of her claim.

As part of her case alleging that Mrs Williams had obstructed a right of way alongside her house, Mrs Pilcher had put forward a series of photographs showing items blocking it.

He said metadata in the images showed that it must have been Mrs Pilcher who moved the items to block the passageway, since they were absent in one picture and then there moments later.

“One can see there is nothing obstructing the right of way, but then another – taken immediately after that – there was an obstruction across it with fencing panels,” he told Mr Justice Soole.

“Our submission is that those photographs, produced by Mrs Pilcher, showed activity by Mrs Pilcher that, on balance, showed that she was obstructing the right of way herself in order to improve her case, and then not telling the truth about it in court.

“The judge didn’t effectively deal with that.

“That apparent fabrication of an obstruction would have been an important matter for the judge to rule on in deciding whether or not the credibility of Mrs Pilcher was as he considered it.

“It was put to her, but she didn’t give a clear answer.”

The barrister also complained that, out of six years of CCTV footage at the houses, Mrs Pilcher had put forward only 30 minutes to back up her case of being “watched” by her neighbour.

At the end of a day-long hearing, Mr Justice Soole rejected Mrs Williams’ bid for a new trial, saying there was no hope of any of her arguments overturning the ruling.

He said: “The particular problem the appeal faces is the high hurdle on appeals based on challenges to findings of fact or exercise of a judge’s discretion.

“I am quite satisfied none of these matters which have been raised have a real prospect of success.”

The decision leaves Mrs Williams having to pay £12,000 damages, as well as picking up 75 per cent of the £243,000 costs bill for the original trial and her lawyers’ bills for her failed appeal.