Get daily news updates directly to your inbox Subscribe Thank you for subscribing We have more newsletters Show me See our privacy notice Could not subscribe, try again later Invalid Email 
 
 A wealthy property developer has lost a 'squatter's rights' legal battle against his elderly neighbours. 
 
 Marcus Heaney, 50, spent four years fighting Hilary and Edward Kirkby over the ownership of a grass verge outside their homes in Thorp Arch, North Yorkshire. 
 
 He now faces a £250,000 legal bill. 
 
 Mrs Kirkby, 72, claimed a right to the land, saying that despite not legally owning it, she had always tended it as her "garden", where she cut grass and planted flowers. 
 
 But she and her 70-year-old husband ended up in court when, in February 2012, their wealthy neighbour registered the verge as his own. 
 
 Read more: Wine bar dodges £100,000 fine after serving liquid nitrogen cocktail 
 
 Now, after a marathon legal battle, in which judges have repeatedly come down on the pensioners' side, Mr Heaney has been left facing a bill estimated at over £250,000. 
 
 (Image: Paul Keogh) 
 
 Mrs Kirkby had been found to own the land by 'adverse possession' - better known as squatters' rights - because she could show she used it as if it was hers for 12 years, a court heard. 
 
 But Mr Randall insisted she hadn't proved she treated it as if she had a right to it - a necessary condition for squatters' rights. 
 
 He complained planting flowers there, cutting grass and putting out boundary stones to stop delivery trucks driving over it was simply 'good neighbourliness'. 
 
 His barrister John Randall QC said: "It would be a sad day for the law if the courts were to attach too much legal significance to acts which pass for nothing between good neighbours,' he told Lord Justice Sales. 
 
 "Adjoining owners would have to be constantly on the watch in case their rights were being infringed. 
 
 Read more: Drivers face chaos as 32,000 breakdowns predicted over Bank Holidays 
 
 "This could do nothing but harm in an area where, once good relations break down, enmity often sinks in." 
 
 The case originally went before the First-Tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal in 2014 and 2015, culminating in a ruling by Judge Roger Kaye QC that Mrs Kirkby was the owner. 
 
 The Kirkbys had bought their property - The Coach House - in 1999 and embarked on an ambitious restoration project, converting it into a home, the tribunals heard. 
 
 The untidy verge, then covered in bushes, was not part of the property, but the couple set about beautifying it and installing two car parking spaces. 
 
 After bringing in 12 tons of topsoil, they seeded the verge with grass and put in place a coping stone with 'The Coach House' carved on it. 
 
 In February 2012, Mr Heaney, who owns 'The Woodshed' on the other side of a narrow lane, acquired 'paper title' to the verge. 
 
 He immediately told the Kirkbys 'to make no further use of it, whether for parking or otherwise'. 
 
 But Mrs Kirkby responded in April the same year by applying to have the verge transferred into her name. 
 
 That set the scene for an epic legal struggle, which has now ended at the Court of Appeal. 
 
 Lord Justice Sales rejected an appeal bid, leaving Mrs Kirkby the rightful owner of the verge and Mr Heaney to foot the legal bill. 
 
 The judge said: "It cannot properly be said that the appeal would raise an important point of principle or practise. 
 
 "Nor do I consider there is some other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear this case." 
 
 Mr Heaney and Mrs Kirkby refused to comment after the hearing. 

 Now, after a marathon legal battle, in which judges have repeatedly come down on Mrs Kirkby's side, Mr Heaney has been left facing a bill estimated at more than £250,000. 
 
 His barrister, John Randall QC, said the case could have dire implications for communities across Britain. 
 
 Mrs Kirkby had been found to own the land by "adverse possession" - better known as so-called "squatters' rights" - because she could show she used it as if it was hers for 12 years, a court heard. 
 
 But Mr Randall insisted she had come nowhere near proving that she treated it as if she had a right to it - a necessary condition for "squatters' rights". 
 
 Planting flowers there, cutting grass and putting out boundary stones to stop delivery trucks driving over it was simply "good neighbourliness", the QC complained. 
 
 "It would be a sad day for the law if the courts were to attach too much legal significance to acts which pass for nothing between good neighbours," he told Lord Justice Sales. 
 
 "Adjoining owners would have to be constantly on the watch in case their rights were being infringed. This could do nothing but harm in an area where, once good relations break down, enmity often sinks in." 

 Top 10 uses for British gardens 
 
 An elderly Yorkshire couple have won a four-year legal battle giving them 'squatter's rights' over the grass verge outside their home Hilary and Edward Kirkby had tended the narrow strip of land in front of their picturesque home in Thorp Arch, near Wetherby, for more than a decade, planting it with flowers and cutting the grass.They put up a low fence enclosing what was effectively their front garden, spread topsoil and put in two parking spaces.But in 2012, property consultant Marcus Heaney, 50, removed the couple's fence and registered the land as his own. He immediately told the Kirkbys to stop using the land for parking or for any other reason.Mrs Kirkby, 72, responded by applying to have the verge transferred into her name, kicking off a four-year battle.Mr Heaney's barrister, John Randall QC, attempted to argue that awarding the land to the Kirkbys would mean that all householders would have to be on their guard over acts of 'good neighbourliness' such as cutting grass."It would be a sad day for the law if the courts were to attach too much legal significance to acts which pass for nothing between good neighbours," he told Lord Justice Sales."Adjoining owners would have to be constantly on the watch in case their rights were being infringed."But because Mrs Kirkby had been using the land for more than 12 years, the court ruled, it's hers under the laws of 'adverse possession', or squatter's rights.Mr Heaney is left facing a legal bill that's been estimated at more than £250,000.Squatting residential property is nearly always illegal. However, it's possible to obtain ownership of non-residential property or land by showing that it's been occupied for ten years, or 12 years in the case of unregistered land."In light of the above case, it is clear that if you use an area of land for the requisite period with an intention to possess that area of land, you could obtain a right to acquire the land by adverse possession," says Erina Pieri of law firm Taylor Wessing."Therefore, if you have any concerns about the way other users may be using an area of land, it would be helpful to seek legal advice to assess the circumstances as soon as possible and take steps to attempt to avoid a user obtaining a right to acquire the land by adverse possession."
– They say fences make good neighbors, but that definitely wasn't true for Hilary and Edward Kirkby. The British couple, who are 72 and 70, respectively, have spent the past 12 years tending to a stretch of yard in front of their Yorkshire home, which they bought in 1999. That work included tearing down the bushes that once filled it, building two parking spots, erecting a low fence, sowing grass—reportedly carting in tons of topsoil in order to do so—and planting flowers, reports the Mirror. Marcus Heaney's home sits across the alley, and the Kirkbys have been battling it out in court with him since Heaney registered the strip of land as his own in 2012, dismantled the fence, and ordered his neighbors to "make no further use of it, whether for parking or otherwise," reports AOL Money. The Kirkbys responded with their own paperwork claiming rights to the land, and the courts have on several occasions ruled in favor of the Kirkbys. This latest—and final—win in the Court of Appeal leaves Heaney with nothing but a $370,000 legal bill, reports the Telegraph. "It would be a sad day for the law if the courts were to attach too much legal significance to acts which pass for nothing between good neighbors," Heaney's attorney said in a sort of warning. "Adjoining owners would have to be constantly on the watch in case their rights were being infringed." AOL notes that Brits who can demonstrate they've occupied unregistered land for a period of 12 years can make an ownership claim. (See why this squatter filed a restraining order.)