EDWARD Owen, the owner of the North Tower of Devizes Castle, has been ordered to pay costs of over £40,000 to his neighbour after a High Court judgement, made public last week, went against him.

Mr Owen, who bought the freehold of the North Tower from his cousins Edward and Anna Kemp five years ago, has been in conflict with Mark Lovell, who bought the South Tower nearly ten years ago, over the boundary on the west side of South Tower's garden.

The dispute last ended up in court in November 2000 and His Honour Judge Weeks QC said in his judgement then that he hoped the two sides would be able to agree a mutually acceptable line of the boundary.

At that time, Judge Weeks ordered Mr Owen to pay 75 per cent of Mr Lovell's costs which, with Mr Owen's own costs, came to about £100,000.

In the latest judgement, the judge describes how, at Mr Owen's suggestion in January 2001, Mr Owen and Mr Lovell walked the boundary and agreed an acceptable line which was marked out with metal rods, subsequently joined up with wire mesh.

Mr Owen applied for planning permission to erect a wooden fence and a shed on the boundary line. This was granted in December 2002.

But trouble began when Mr Lovell complained that the new shed was pushing up against the metal rods of the boundary.

Mr Owen replied that the fence of metal rods and mesh was on his side of the boundary and he was quite within his rights to dismantle them.

In a letter to Mr Lovell's solicitor on April 30, 2003, Mr Owen complained of interference with the boundary fence.

He said: "Over the last couple of years I have noticed it inching slowly our way and, at the same time, I have noticed the line of stones on the north-east of the large beech tree moving, together with the fence."

Mr Lovell's solicitor replied that the line of rods had not been moved since they were hammered in in the presence of Mr Owen.

Mr Owen continued with his plan to erect a wooden fence and on July 1 Mr Lovell's solicitor wrote to him: "We were dismayed to learn from our client this afternoon you have today trespassed upon our client's land and felled a mature yew tree on our client's land as well as removing wire fencing."

Mr Owen did not dispute that contractors working under his instructions removed the tree and the rods but he insisted they were on his land.

The case came before Judge Weeks again in July last year when Mr Owen undertook to suspend any further work until the dispute had been solved.

After seeing evidence from surveyors and arboriculturalists, especially with regard to alleged mistakes in plans and maps of the area, Judge Weeks

delivered his verdict on January 21.

He said: "I find that there was an agreement between the parties, on site, on that day that the boundary was properly shown on site by the metal rods hammered into the ground joined by the mesh which was subsequently attached to the rods. That, in my judgement, is the true boundary.

"I have, lastly, to consider the allegation by Mr Owen, that, step by step, Mr Lovell encroached up his, Mr Owen's, property by moving surreptitiously these poles, and probably the mesh as well, inch by inch, to the west.

"I find that allegation quite fanciful, and I accept Mr Lovell's evidence that he has never moved the rods, which remained exactly in the place where they were put by Mr Owen and himself in January 2001 until they were removed, to a large extent, by Mr Owen in June and July 2003."

He awarded damages for trespass against Mr Owen as well as the cost of replacing the yew tree and removal of the stump. The Lovells' barrister asked for costs of £40,514.