In brief: The Royal Court has lifted injunctions that halted renovation works at a listed Grouville property, finding that the company which obtained them failed to give full and frank disclosure and misled the Bailiff. The dispute centres on rooflights, replacement windows and a hayloft door at La Perronelle, a listed home in the hamlet of Ville Es Philippes. A compensation claim exceeding £51,000 remains to be decided at a further hearing.
A Neighbourly Dispute Turns Legal
Tucked away in the six-home hamlet of Ville Es Philippes in Grouville, five of the properties are listed buildings, which rather sets the scene for the kind of dispute where heritage correspondence and planning sensitivities collide with neighbourly relations. Jack and Corinne White own La Perronelle and had been carrying out renovation works involving rooflights, replacement windows and a hayloft door. Their neighbours at Terre Bonne, held by Fosse Astelle Family Holdings Limited through its shareholders and directors Mr and Mrs Lingard, were not pleased.
The Whites’ purchase contract, Bailiwick Express reports, permits a “reasonable number” of “small” heritage-style rooflights, though neither term is defined in the contract. That ambiguity, it is fair to say, did not make things simpler.
In February, Fosse Astelle Family Holdings obtained injunctions stopping the renovation works. Crucially, that application was made without the Whites being present or represented. Harry Lingard argued that the proposed rooflights would “destroy the visual dominance of the large, steep roof.”
The Court Finds Serious Failures of Disclosure
The Royal Court was unimpressed with how those injunctions were obtained. It found a “serious failure” to provide full and frank disclosure, concluding that “the Bailiff was misled when granting the injunction.”
The failures were specific and significant. The application omitted the Whites’ offer to delay works to allow their neighbour time to seek an injunction through the proper process. It also failed to explain clearly that works had already been under way for some months before the application, and it did not disclose a confrontation over scaffolding that had taken place at the property.
That confrontation, as recorded in the judgment, is disputed but striking. One account holds that Mr and Mrs Lingard, their son and other men attempted to remove scaffolding at around 9pm, described in the judgment as being “under cover of darkness.” The account also includes allegations that Mrs Lingard punched Mr White’s brother, who was acting as the building contractor, and threatened to kill him. The company’s advocate disputed this account. The court made no finding on the truth of those allegations, but ruled that the altercation and the fact that police attended should have been disclosed in the application regardless.
The court also took a dim view of how heritage correspondence had been handled. An email describing amended roof proposals as “a positive and welcome response” appeared in the supporting documents but was not highlighted in the affidavit, a piece of selective quotation the court criticised directly.
Injunctions Lifted, Damages Still to Come
The injunctions were lifted on 16 June, with the judgment subsequently setting out the reasoning. The Whites have claimed £51,573.05 in losses, covering additional accommodation costs and contractor costs arising from the disruption to their works. Fosse Astelle Family Holdings has disputed the claim. No damages were awarded in this judgment; the court has directed a further hearing to consider that question.
Source: Bailiwick Express
