This is a problem that many people residing near young families or schools can probably relate to.
However, continuously booting soccer balls over your neighbor’s fence and into their yard constitutes a nuisance, according to the High Court’s ruling.
Although ‘infrequent’ tennis balls may be ‘troublesome,’ the ‘regular projection’ of such objects onto another person’s property violates common law, according to a judge.
The decision was made in the lawsuit brought forth by an affluent couple who won their case against a county council following complaints about footballs being lobbed into their yard from a nearby school, with balls arriving approximately once every two days.
Mohamed and Marie-Anne Bakhaty — residents of a £2 million property — stated that the balls and commotion from an all-weather play zone prevented them from using their swimming pool. They also had to cancel their yearly summer gathering due to what they considered a nuisance.
The company director, Mrs Bakhaty, aged 66, stated that the adjacent sports field has “taken over my life.” Meanwhile, her husband, property developer Mr Bakhaty, who is 77 years old, asserted that the school intentionally constructed the facility to deliberately disturb them.
They brought the issue before a High Court judge, requesting an order to bar the utilization of the £36,000 playground in Winchester, Hampshire.
Judge Philip Glen determined that the footballs were causing a nuisance for the couple, noting that during certain times, a considerable amount would end up in the garden of their beautiful residence.
Nevertheless, although he granted them £1,000 in compensation, he stated that the Bakhatys had eventually lost sight of their broader perspective and became overly invested in their conviction that they were victims of an injustice.
The court, which convened in Southampton, was informed that Mr and Mrs Bakhaty relocated to their ‘striking’ residence in the Fulflood area of the historic city back in 1994.
The estate features a sizable south-facing garden along with a swimming pool, situated next to The Westgate School – Hampshire’s inaugural ‘all-through’ institution catering to students from age four to 16.
In 2021, funds were collected to convert a turf-covered playground into an all-weather play space.
The $48,000 construction, labeled as a five-a-side football field, features a green wire fence around it and sits approximately two meters from the edge of the property owned by the couple.
The judge observed that the facility was utilized not just during weekdays but also on weekends since the school, which has been graded Outstanding by Ofsted, would lease it to outside groups.
Shortly after it was open, the pair voiced complaints regarding the noise and footballs coming into their garden.
The school originally arranged a meeting to talk about the issue with Mr. and Mrs. Bakhaty, but it was reported that this did not go well.
The couple consulted with lawyers who then dispatched a letter to the school regarding the issue.
As a result, the organization implemented ‘measures’ in July of 2022.
This involved installing a net above the field to stop balls from getting lost and limiting its usage to the school hours up till 4:15 pm.
Even so, the pair filed a lawsuit with the High Court against Hampshire County Council in October of that same year, claiming that the noise and escaping footballs constituted a ‘common law nuisance’.
They claimed that the council has violated their rights, as outlined in Articles 8 and 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights Act.
The couple attempted to obtain an injunction, preventing ‘any usage’ of the year-round playing field.
This pertains to their entitlement to privacy within their family life, as well as their right to peaceful enjoyment of their property.
The High Court was informed that the noise subsequent to the construction of the pitch has been extremely significant and represented a dramatic shift compared to previous conditions.
Mrs. Bakhaty informed the judge that although she used to be an enthusiastic gardener, the outdoors have become a ‘forbidden zone’ because of ‘constant shouting, whistling, and the sound of balls bouncing against the weld mesh fence.’
She calculated that around 170 balls landed in their garden during an 11-month span and mentioned she can no longer make use of her pool or summerhouse.
It was also reported that the pair feels incapable of hosting their yearly summer garden gathering.
At the hearing, Mrs Bakhaty underwent cross-examination on this matter and discussed the ‘anxiety and distress’ she experienced due to the ‘terrible noise.’
Mrs. Bakhaty stated that the mitigation measure implemented by the school only made the situation “marginally more tolerable.”
Mr. Bakhaty provided analogous testimony to the High Court, stating that both he and his spouse have ‘entirely lost the pleasure of their home.’
The developer mentioned that although he puts in long hours at work, he no longer finds it feasible to go back home for a ‘siesta.’ As an alternative, he opts to take it inside his vehicle.
The judge mentioned that during his inspection of the property, he found approximately 20 soccer balls arranged along the flower beds in the Bakhaty family’s garden.
Attorneys acting on behalf of the council contended that the all-weather pitch serves as a ‘valuable asset’ benefiting both the school and the broader community.
They stated that the evidence presented by the couple was due to ‘excessive sensitivity and exaggeration.’
Judge Glen stated that the expert testimony indicated that the noise levels were considered capable of causing at least significant irritation.
He stated: “Overall, I am content that the noise coming from the school…constitutes significant (meaning it’s neither minor nor temporary) disruption for the typical user as experienced by the Bakhatys.”
He mentioned that ever since the school installed the net, its impact has diminished.
He determined that ‘the sporadic balls flying over the fence since then (a frequent occurrence in numerous gardens), although bothersome, do not reach a significant enough level to constitute a major disruption.’
Judge Glen determined that issuing an injunction would be inappropriate. However, he instructed the council to compensate the couple with £1,000 as compensation for damage caused during the time when there was excessive usage of the playground and a substantial number of balls had crossed over the fence boundary.
Judge Glen determined that allowing third-party usage of the field when school wasn’t in session was deemed inconvenient and thus constituted a nuisance to some degree.
However, he mentioned that the pair had grown overly sensitive to the sounds coming from the school, leading them to believe excessively that they were being victimized unfairly.
The judge added: ‘To sum up, they have lost their sense of perspective.’
The pair chose not to comment on the matter.
The Hampshire County Council has been asked for their input.
Read more
