A CHURT woman faces penalties and costs of well over £100,000, after a bitter two-and-a- half year dispute between neighbours over the lopping of a conifer hedge in Churt reached its costly conclusion at Guildford County Court last week. The one-and-a-half day court case stemmed from the cutting of a 19-yard stand of Lawson conifer trees on the boundary between two properties on Hale House Lane, Churt, in January, 2003. Since then, claimants Nabile Habib and his wife, Andrea, have become embroiled in a litigious wrangle, of which Judge Critchlow remarked in his summation. "In boundary disputes and disputes about trees, I think it is important for both parties to consider the option of mediation before litigation fees ensue. "This case is exactly the sort of case where mediations could and should have been used." In the event, their neighbour, Mrs Gillian Devine, was ordered to pay a total of £12,500 damages and loss of amenity to the Habibs, as well as 70 per cent of their legal costs. Her own costs are understood to be in excess of £85,000, so in total the dispute will have cost her more than £100,000. The judge, in his summary, said that Mrs Devine had lived in her property since 1990, but before Mr and Mrs Habib purchased their home in 2000, two separate plots of land in different ownerships existed between the two houses. From 1996, Mrs Devine managed the unmaintained hedge and vegetation on both patches of land, as she is a keen gardener and was concerned about a lack of light on her property. In the winter of 2001/02, she arranged the lopping of approximately 50 trees to eight feet by her gardener, David Dawkins. In 2002, the Habibs purchased the plot nearest their home for £15,000, and Mrs Devine purchased the land adjoining her property soon afterwards for £5,000. Mrs Devine had discussed this decision with Mr Habib, with neighbourly relations at this time said to be "good", said Judge Critchlow. In the summer of that year, Mrs Devine lit a bonfire, which scorched approximately eight conifers along the newly formed boundary between the two houses. While some trees recovered, six did not. Mrs Devine immediately apologised, agreeing to replace the damaged trees. The Habibs were "upset" by the incident, but relations between the two parties were not seriously affected, said the judge. However, on January 25, 2003, the defendant instructed Mr Dawkins to "carry on lining the hedge". Mrs Devine claimed that he misunderstood the instruction and, as a consequence, a row of conifers - which had previously stood unevenly at heights between five and seven metres - had been reduced to 2.5 metres. Mrs Habib was said to be upset and shocked, and an angry conversation between Mr Habib and Mrs Devine ensued - as did legal proceedings. Debate initially raged about the number of trees concerned in the incident. Mr Habib originally alleged that 73 trees were involved, while the defence claimed the figure was nearer 25. In an attempt to clarify the matter, Judge Critchlow remarked: "I am satisfied that it was more than 25 trees cut from seven metres to 2.5 metres. Approximately 30 trees were cut, which - including the scorched trees - amounts to 36 in total." Nevertheless, he declared: "This case has an unfortunate history in assessing the number of trees and the value of the claim. "I wonder why the site experts did not visit the site together to come up with the same figures," he added. Mrs Devine had offered to waive her right to the land of the hedge, and several offers of mediation offered by her were refused by the claimant. But, Judge Crichlow commented: "No realistic offer to settle it has been made by the defendant. The sums of £2,000 and £4,000 were too low." The judge put the question: "Is reinstatement practical or sensible?" The cost of replacement by 36 similar trees was estimated at £38,500, and it was estimated that the existing trees were growing back at approximately 60 cm a year. The judge said that an estate agent had considered that the incident had had no effect on the market value of the Habib's house, which was estimated at between £750- £800,000. But Miss Tozer, acting for the Habibs, commented: "My clients' concern is who can see them and their children in their garden. They want to feel safe here." Delivering his findings, Judge Critchlow said: "I find that in summer there is a minimal effect on the privacy of the claimant. Clearly, in winter the situation is different, but the section that was cut is evergreen, and the larger effect is of deciduous trees losing their leaves." "The matter was a shock to the claimant and Mrs Habib was upset when she saw the results of Mr Dawkins' handiwork. "That bit of hedge should not have been cut. A significant swathe of trees outside their home is no longer there, and Mr and Mrs Habib have been reminded of this on a daily basis, every time they come and go." Mrs Devine must pay total compensation of £10,000 for the period until January 2009, when the trees are expected to reach their original height of seven metres. "For damages of trees scorched by the bonfire, I see £2,500 as a reasonable figure," the judge added.