An appeal court judge has criticised the decision of the High Bailiff not to awards costs in a neighbour dispute case.

Mark Jason Cleator, who owns land at Lagdhoo on Main Road, Lonan, was forced to take legal action after neighbours moved in to Greenhills next door in March last year and began knocking down a stone wall.

The court heard Mr Cleator first wrote a polite note to neighbours David and Gwen Moon stating that the area in front of his gate was his property and it was not appropriate to remove the boundary between his land and that of the owner of the adjoining field.

He said he had been on very good terms with the previous owners of Greenhills and was quite relaxed about their temporary parking in the area in front of his gate.

But he added: ’I must insist that you reinstate said boundary with some urgency. I would also ask that under these circumstances you no longer leave a vehicle parked on my area immediately in front of the gate.’

With no response to the letter, Mr Cleator instructed an advocate in June to demand that the demolished wall be reinstated. But by August the stone wall had been completely removed.

Legal proceedings were issued over the disputed land but the claim was withdrawn when the wall was finally restored.

But High Bailiff John Needham declined to give an order for costs, arguing that the practical benefit of the wall was ’extremely marginal’. The High Bailiff said parties should not ’run to the court’ at the first hint of interference with perceived legal rights particularly over an issue of ’little practical consequence’.

But Mr Cleator, who represented himself in court while his neighbours employed an advocate, appealed and the appeal court has now ruled in his favour, awardings costs of £6,840 plus a further £1,125 in relation to the appeal.

Judge of appeal Geoffrey Tattersall and First Deemster David Doyle said they were satisfied that the decision of the High Bailiff to make no order for costs was ’plainly wrong’.

Their judgment said: ’Frankly the respondents knowingly exposed themselves to the risk of status quo proceedings and it is unjust that the appellant should be deprived of his costs. IIt mattered not that the High Bailiff regarded the practical benefit of the reinstated wall as ’extremely marginal’ because the respondents had conceded that the appellant was entitled to the reinstatement of the stone wall.

’The High Bailiff should have made an order for the appellant’s costs to be paid.’

The dispute over the ownership of the land has been referred by the Land Registry to a Land Commissioner for determination.