RSS Feed
March 14th, 2012 
FAKE NEWS for the Zionist agenda - Couple even accused neighbour of forging plans until truth was ‘wrung out’ in witness box
- Likely to lose entire home after being hit with six figure legal costs but would have won the case anyway
By
Daniel Miller
14:09 EST, 13 March 2012
|
16:30 EST, 13 March 2012
An elderly homeowner is facing financial ruin after being caught forging site plans during a boundary war with his neighbour which he would have won anyway.
Devious Peter Hutchinson tampered with the plans after pulling out a hedge to make way for a shed in his back garden.
After the deceit was uncovered, Mr Hutchinson, a builder, and his partner yoga teacher, Susan Penning, even accused their neighbour, Michael Neale, of forging the document himself.
Devious: Peter Hutchinson tampered with a site plan during a boundary dispute before he and partner Susan Penning accused their neighbour, Michael Neale, of forging the document himself
But, after the truth came out in court, the grey-haired couple, of , Leominster, paid a heavy price when – despite winning the boundary dispute – they were hit with enormous lawyers’ bills that left them ‘ruined’.
Now, however, in a bid to keep their home, they are asking Appeal Court judges to save them from the ‘financial calamity’ of having to pay legal costs which are likely to run well into six figures.
The row exploded in 2005 when Mr Hutchinson and Ms Penning ‘grabbed up’ part of a hedge in their back garden to make way for a new shed and Mr Neale, a retired military surveyor, and his wife Ann, who live next door at ‘Headley’, objected.
After two county court hearings, Judge Simon Barker QC ruled in favour of Mr Hutchinson and Ms Penning on the boundary issue – but went on to punish their dishonesty by leaving them to foot their own legal costs bills and the lion’s share of their neighbours’.
Mr Hutchinson had used a photocopier to tamper with a 1944 site plan, changing a measurement from ’73 feet’ to ’78 feet’, and the judge said there was ‘no possibility that this was anything other than a conscious and deliberate alteration’.
Ms Penning knew what he had done and, even after the truth emerged, they ‘chose not to come clean’, instead trying to blame Mr Neale for the forgery, he added.
Alec McCluskey, for the Neales, said their neighbours were guilty of ‘serious dishonesty’ and Ms Penning ‘persisted in maintaining that they did not alter the plan’ until the truth was ‘eventually wrung out’ of her under cross-examination in the witness box.
Arguing that the pair’s dishonesty had ‘poisoned the whole litigation process’, and made a settlement all but impossible, the barrister added: ‘Their false evidence was also, of course, a contempt of court’.
Cleared: Neighbours Michael and Ann Neale objected when Mr Hutchinson and Ms Penning ‘grabbed up’ part of a hedge in their back garden to make way for a new shed
By pointing the finger at Mr Neale, the couple had accused him of being ‘party to an elaborate scheme to pervert the course of justice’ and he was entitled to come to court to clear his name, Mr McCluskey told Lords Justice Patten and Pitchford
The barrister added that Mr Hutchinson and Ms Penning ‘have at no stage sought to apologise either to the Neales, or to the court, for the disgraceful allegation and giving perjured evidence in support of it’.
John Brennan, for Mr Hutchinson and Ms Penning, pointed out that they had won the boundary dispute and – although there was ‘no glory in victory’ for them – the normal order would have been for the Neales to pay their legal costs.
Attacking Judge Barker’s decision to punish them so heavily in legal costs, the barrister added: ‘They are ruined. They will have to sell their house in order to meet the costs of refuting the Neales’ claim to own part of their garden’.
Mr Brennan also argued the Neales had turned away pre-trial offers to settle the case and that the fabricated document in the end had no impact on the outcome of the dispute.
However, Mr McCluskey responded: ‘It cannot be right that the Neales should have to pay the costs of dishonest litigants who signed false statements of truth in contempt of court and then gave perjured evidence.
‘Not only would that be grossly unfair to the Neales, it would be contrary to the interests of the administration of justice.
‘Parties to boundary disputes should not expect to be able to fabricate documents and lie under oath in support of their case and still recover their costs if they succeed at trial.
‘It is only just that someone who gives perjured evidence should have to pay’.
The Appeal Court judges have now reserved their judgment on the case until a later date.
-
Incredible bravery of acid attack victim as she arrives to…
-
Terrified wife leaps off 50ft mountain ledge to escape…
-
‘Even though it hurts me, it makes me feel good’: Girl who…
-
‘I love you Daddy, goodnight’: Last words of tragic…
-
World’s tallest man reaches his peak as scientists discover…
-
Burlesque beauties of the 1890s: Stunning vintage photos of…
-
‘I love you and I’ll try to do I can to make you…
-
Widow of newspaper editor, 63, who died of heart attack…
-
‘They did everything you see in the movie’: Partying…
-
Man vs. Wild’s Bear Grylls ‘fired after he refused to…
-
‘I don’t have drugs but can sell you some Tide’: Police…
-
Now that’s a stunning goal! Extreme sports fans invent ball…
Share this article:
Here’s what other readers have said. Why not add your thoughts,
or debate this issue live on our message boards.
The comments below have not been moderated.
-
Newest -
Oldest -
Best rated -
Worst rated
The fact that the costs to resolve a rather insignificant boundary dispute cause one of the parties face ruin is a scandal. It appears that the, publicly subsidised, court system is dedicated to making lawyers rich. Providing simple justice to ordinary people is now a long forgotten relic of the past.
Some other countries do this much better. Fees are regulated by the amount of money in dispute. This means that lawyers have to make sure they work efficiently or they will be out of pocket. Of course, Cameron and Clegg won’t lift a finger will they?
The UK court system for both criminal and civil matters is not fit for purpose. While it is nominally run by the civil service and ministers who don’t care because its not their money, in reality its is run by lawyers for lawyers who really do care because they want to make millions at other peoples’ expense.
Report abuse
Some people really need to GROW UP just clicked this article after reading the heartbreaking news about those poor children in the bus crash, just shows that life is far too short to spend arguing over boundaries. Make your peace while you can because life is so precious.
Report abuse
There is some truth in the saying ” I won at law and a naked man i am,” The moral of the story is dont rush into an open ended milking money machine that the law has now become.
Report abuse
Petty petty british snobbery…
Report abuse
So, they did the wrong thing, time to pay up.
Report abuse
Serves them right! Some people are never satisfied with what they have and always want to grab a bit more. I walk through a large field every day which has houses backing on to it. Nearly every single one of them has now “grabbed” a bit of the farmers field. Over the years they start by putting out a few bird feeders, then a few bags of garden waste, then a few shrubs appear, a bit of wire netting, until their garden fence is moved several feet out. Why can’t people be happy with what they’ve got?
Report abuse
Hutchinson is a deceitful fool and now a penniless one too. It is only right that he should pay for his actions and having to sell his house is richly deserved.
Report abuse
‘Now…. in a bid to keep their home, they are asking Appeal Court judges to save them from the ‘financial calamity’ of having to pay legal costs’ When in a hole stop digging? Unless, all of a sudden, appeals to the higher court are now free of costs; or is Hutchinson simply a stupid man (one who repeats an experience in the hope of a different outcome) as well as dishonest?
Report abuse
Just proves nobody is above the law.
Report abuse
PIllock! Snatched defeat from the jaws of certain victory.
Report abuse
The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.
Posted in 
Tags: 
