An 80-year-old sheep breeder and her millionaire construction boss neighbour took a row over a gate to the High Court after a six year battle
An 80-year-old shepherdess has been left with a massive court bill after losing a fight with her £90m hotel construction boss neighbour over a gate.
Peter Leonard, 42, and wife Kelly, 46, sued octogenarian Charolais sheep breeder Muriel Whiston after complaining her gate interfered with Mrs Leonard reversing her Land Rover out of their £900,000 farmhouse. The neighbours rowed for six years after the couple accused the shepherdess of being “abusive and aggressive” to visitors and delivery drivers at their 33-acre Shropshire home. The clash started when Mrs Whiston put new gates across a shared track at the entrance to her neighbouring smallholding, along with a sign insisting they be kept shut “at all times” for her sheep.
Ensure our latest headlines always appear at the top of your Google Search by making us a Preferred Source. Click here to activate or add us as your Preferred Source in your Google search settings.
READ MORE: Mum ‘cut love cheat married son from £5m inheritance’ as he battles sister in courtREAD MORE: ‘Sadistic’ pair brutally beat and blew up sheep with explosives
The couple claimed the gate interfered with their right of way over the part of the track on her land, stopping delivery drivers from using the area beyond the gate. They also alleged it blocked Mrs Leonard from reversing her car out of their courtyard, forcing her to “engage in a multi-point turning manoeuvre to point in the right direction”.
They sued, asking Judge Sarah Watson at Birmingham County Court to force the shepherdess to remove her gate and sign. The couple, who also run a refuge for rescued rabbits at their property, claimed in combination with her “abusive” behaviour they formed an “unreasonable interference” with their right of way.
Mrs Whiston denied interfering with the right of way and insisted she was within her rights to “politely” tell delivery drivers and other visitors the gate should only be opened when necessary, and needed to be shut afterwards. The octogenarian countersued in a bid to make them keep a door leading to their barn shut, to prevent their rescue animals spilling out and mixing with her flock.
The judge, in September 2024, ruled the sign should be removed and did not find the behaviour was “abusive” and said they gate did not need to be removed. She refused the elderly woman’s injunction to force the couple to keep a door, where their rescue animals were being housed, shut at all times. None of the neighbours were happy with the outcome and both sides appealed parts of the ruling at the High Court.
Mr Justice Michael Green has dismissed both sides’ challenges to the county court decision and upheld a ruling that the shepherdess must pay the massive legal costs of the case – likely to run well into six figures.
The court heard that 80-year-old’s farm and the Leonards’ land had been owned by Mrs Whiston’s family since before she was born and was split in two in 1996.
Mr Leonard – director of MM Capital, a Dublin-based property development business focusing on construction of hotels, which he says has invested around £90m in projects over the last decade – bought the Lower Fenemere Court for around £900,000, in 2017.
The court heard when the couple moved in there was already a gate across the track to stop Mrs Whiston’s sheep escaping, but it was often open unless the flock were in the area in front of her bungalow. The neighbours got on well until in 2020 when they clashed via text, with the couple complaining that Mrs Whiston was not opening the gate again after her sheep had departed for the fields.
There followed a period during which the shepherdess was “trying to discuss…an idea she had for a new gate to be put up in a different position that she thought would not be so inconvenient to Mr and Mrs Leonard,” but in the end in August 2020 she “just went ahead and put up a new gate”.
The new gate, along with a sign declaring, “Farm Livestock. Please keep gate shut at all times” kicked off the neighbours war and despite it being replaced with a new set of double gates in 2021 slightly further back along the track, the row ended up in court.
The judge in 2024 directed that the gates could remain, but the sign should be replaced with one reading: “Lower Fenemere Farm and Turning for Lower Fenemere Court. Please shut gate after use to prevent the escape of farm livestock.” He also banned the shepherdess or her staff from telling delivery drivers or other visitors not to use the track beyond the gate.
In the High Court, she appealed against the finding that there had been a “substantial interference” with the neighbouring couple’s right of way, pointing to the fact that she had been found not to have been “abusive” to visitors.
But dismissing her appeal, Mr Justice Green said: “The judge actually found in Mrs Whiston’s favour as to whether she was abusive or aggressive, but ended up concluding that she can ‘on her own admission be forthright…She does not mince her words.’
“The judge considered that even though she was not abusive, she did adopt a ‘firm and direct approach’ and that it did not much matter ultimately whether the appellant was abusive or conducted herself in such a way as to discourage visitors from using [the area beyond the gates] for turning. They both have the same effect of amounting to a substantial interference and she was injuncted from any similar behaviour in the future.”
He also threw out her appeal over the door being left open on the barn housing the rescue rabbits, and refused Mr and Mrs Leonard’s cross appeal bid for an order that the gates must be left open at all times. Finally, he refused Mrs Whiston’s appeal against having to pay the costs of the case, saying that despite having lost on some issues the couple were “clearly the winners in this case”.
Mr Justice Green said: “It is most regrettable that this matter could not be resolved out of court and that there has been so much time and money spent in relation to this dispute, quite out of proportion to the issues at stake.” He did not set out the total cost of the four-day trial and the High Court appeal, but it is likely to be a six figure sum.
