Elderly neighbour faces ruin after fabricating document in boundary dispute

An elderly home owner who used a photocopier to fabricate a crucial document in the midst of a bitter boundary war with his next-door neighbours is facing ruin.Although there was only a few feet of land and a garden shed at stake, Peter Hutchinson put everything on the line when he "tampered" with a site plan so that a crucial measurement, which should have read "73 feet", read "78 feet" instead. In an attempt to wriggle off the hook when his deceit was uncovered, Mr Hutchinson, a builder, and yoga teacher, Susan Penning, even accused their neighbour, Michael Neale, of forging the document himself in an attempt to blacken their credibility. But, after the truth came out in court, the grey-haired couple, of "Whitecrest", Newlands Drive, 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 "grubbed 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 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". 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.