An artist and his lawyer partner are locked in a fight with their neighbors, accused of taking and paving three feet of their garden.
Wendy Mizzicka, 58, and her partner Amanda Uziel-Hamilton, 65, are accused of grabbing land on a narrow strip of land between their million-pound home and the £1.4m Victorian home of their neighbours, Jay and Hannah Stirrett. ,
Neighbors’ Home in Camberwell, South LondonThe gardens are built in support of each other and the Stirrets say that while redoing their garden in 2018, the other couple removed a fence and walked three feet back toward the Stirrets’ home.
They are now suing in Central London County Court for the return of the strip, which – despite its size – is ‘critical’ in an area of London where properties are expensive and gardens are small and valuable.
However, their neighbors deny that the land belongs to the Stirrets and say they were simply using their flower beds before it was temporarily closed by builders in 2013.
The disputed three-foot strip of land is behind two properties in Camberwell, south London, and separates the gardens of the congested neighbours.
Amanda Uziel-Hamilton (left), 65, and her partner Wendy Mieszka (right), 58, claim that the fence they removed was built purely for privacy reasons, and that the real divider between properties is a block wall which stands three feet behind where the fence was – a strip of land which they have now paved and claimed their
Jay and Hannah Stirrett (pictured) are suing their neighbors over an allegation that they confiscated a three-foot strip of land by removing a garden fence and paving the disputed land behind it. Pictured: Complainant outside Central London County Court
Outlining the case, Stirrets’ barrister, Tom Morris, told Judge David Saunders that the couple had purchased their four-bedroom home in Camberwell and moved in 2015.
Mr. Stirrett is an engineer, while Mrs. Stirrett is a vice president at a US-based human resources company.
Mszyca is a fine artist specializing in multimedia and photography, while Ms Uziell-Hamilton is a Law Lecturer Training Support Lawyer.
When the Stirrets moved in, a wall was built behind their garden, but they insist that it was not on the right boundary line, but was actually built about three feet inside their garden area.
The real boundary, they say, was a wooden fence three feet behind the wall, marking the end of the other couple’s garden, until they controversially removed it and paved it to a wall of stilettos in 2018. Went.
Mr Morris told the judge: ‘Around August 2018, the defendants removed the fence, and incorporated the strip of land between it and the block wall into their garden.’
Mr Morris claimed that the wall built on Stirrett’s property before the builders bought it was entirely within their garden and only placed there to avoid confrontations with Ms. Miszyka and Ms. Uziel-Hamilton.
Despite the wall, the real boundary was the fence in Ms. Miszyka and Ms. Uziel-Hamilton’s garden, which was removed by their neighbors while they were laying the floor.
“The position of the claimants is that the block wall was built entirely to the east of the old fence and wholly on the property of the claimants,” he told the judge.
‘The construction of the block wall created a strip of land between the block wall and the old fence – the disputed land.
The case of the ‘claimants’ is that the old fence remained in place and demarcated the disputed boundary.
‘The old fence was replaced, the claimants’ position is that it follows the line of boundary.’
Giving evidence, Mr Stirrett said he had always considered the boundary between properties with others in the street, following the fence line removed by his neighbours.
‘The border was on the fence line, in line with everyone else’s garden,’ he said.
And his next-door neighbor, writer Jeremy Fox, supported him, telling the judge that he was often in the past before visiting their garden and building three feet into the wall.
He watched from his upper-floor writing room as the builder had erected the wall and when he went to tell her it was in the wrong place, he was told it was because he was with Ms. Miszika and Ms. Uziel-Hamilton wanted to avoid trouble.
He told me he had some kind of disagreement with the occupiers of the previous property and couldn’t be bothered by it, so he kept it where he did,’ he told the judge.
But for Mszyca and Ms Uziell-Hamilton, barrister Ezra Macdonald insisted that the wall was the end of the Stirrats’ garden and that their clients had not encroached upon their property.
The fence in his garden was put up by builders to give him some privacy during the construction of the wall, but was actually entirely inside his garden and effectively cut him off from his flower bed.
And he said it was inherently impossible that a builder working for a developer would simply give up valuable garden area to avoid a dispute with some neighbors.
He told the judge, “It is surprisingly improbable that a contractor working for a developer building a wall would put the wall where the neighbors told him to put it.”
He said it was clear that the wall at the Stirretts’ property was the end of their garden and that everything beyond that belonged to Ms. Miszyka and Ms. Uziel-Hamilton.
“When Mr and Mrs Stirratt bought their property in 2015, the garden … was apparently surrounded by a permanent, provided, block wall,” he said.
‘There was no access to the strip of land between the block wall and the back fence.
Barristers Wendy Mizzicka and Amanda Uziel-Hamilton claim that the fence in their garden was erected by builders to give them privacy while the wall was built, but was actually entirely inside their garden and made them effective. was cut off in the manner that belonged to him. Flowering. Pictured: Ms Miszyka and Ms Uziel-Hamilton’s £1m-plus home in Camberwell, south London
Mr and Mrs Stirret claim the block wall was erected three feet behind the fence, encroaching on their property and taking up a ‘significant’ amount of their £1.4m property. Pictured: Mr and Mrs Stirret’s Victorian home in Camberwell, south London
‘It would have been perfectly clear to any sane layman that he was buying a property up to and surrounded by the block wall.
‘The true legal boundary is – and always has been – on the west side of the block wall.’
He added: ‘No reasonable common man would have believed that they were acquiring this completely unusable, inaccessible strip of land other than the ready and ready garden area.’
Mr and Mrs Stirret are suing for a declaration that the boundary between the properties is about three feet from the wall, along their neighbors’ old fence line, and for possession of the strip of land.
Mszyca and Ms Uziell-Hamilton are contesting a declaration that they own all the land up to the Wall of Stirrats.
The judge will decide on the matter later.