A long-running land dispute between two Paget neighbours reached its climax in court yesterday when lawyers for both parties delivered their closing arguments.

Samuel Andrew Banks, who owns 17 Inglewood Lane, has argued that Simon and Deirdre Storey, the owners of neighbouring 13 Inglewood Lane, cleared trees from a woodland reserve on Mr Banks’s property to build a road.

The Storeys claimed that the trees in the area had been destroyed by hurricanes Fay and Gonzalo, which struck the island in October 2014.

Mr Storey said that he then took it upon himself to replant 7,000 square feet of the damaged woodland, which bordered his property, at a cost of more than $600,000.

In a counterclaim, the Storeys claimed that Mr Banks — the husband of former premier Dame Pamela Gordon — had erected two pillars and a gate that encroached on their property.

The couple also claimed that Mr Banks erected a four-foot chain-link fence along the boundary of the two properties and dumped concrete blocks in view of the Storeys’ home in acts of “intimidation”.

Addressing Larry Mussenden, the Chief Justice, defence attorney Keith Robinson, representing the Storeys, said: “The gate and pillars are clearly an encroachment and the court should grant that Mr Banks has no entitlement beyond his own boundary line.

“The description of the right of way is very clear in the 1958 deeds. These deeds have very clear wording.”

Mr Robinson said that according to testimony by Mr Banks, a 1975 map of the area contained “mistakes”.

He said “The plaintiff’s theory is inadmissible.

“You have to be very careful with regard to looking at subsequent plans and maps and evidence from lay clients and witnesses and what the legal position is.”

Mr Robinson also argued that Mr Banks had made an arrangement with electricity supplier Belco to install new underground power cables that ran across the Storeys’ property.

He said: “He took it upon himself to put in a new line and he had no right to do so. This is a case of Mr Banks doing exactly what he wanted.”

Mr Robinson also insisted that hurricanes Fay and Gonzalo had caused widespread damage to the island’s vegetation, supporting the Storeys’ claim that the trees had been blown over.

In response, lawyer Jeffrey Elkinson, argued that the one breach of regulations that his client had made did not compare to the degree of encroachments that the Storeys deliberately carried out.

He pointed out that it was only once the dispute erupted that Mr Banks discovered that the gate and pillars he had put up crossed the border on to the Storeys’ property — “by approximately 2½ inches”.

Mr Elkinson argued that, by contrast, Mr Storey had a habit of breaching planning regulations.

He also dismissed claims by the defence that Mr Storey was unaware of the boundaries of his property and was not familiar with woodland reserve regulations — despite being “a keen horticulturalist” and a sophisticated, highly educated man.

Mr Elkinson reminded the court that satellite images showed trees in the woodland reserve “still in place” after the hurricane, but that, a few months later, a pathway could be seen running through the area.

Mr Elkinson said: “He [Mr Storey] was a rule breaker. He had no regard for the law concerning planning or development.

“He put up what he wanted to without getting planning permission.

“It was a land grab. He was hoping that no one would ever notice what had gone on — nobody would ever go there.”

Mr Elkinson pointed out that, according to one expert, the trees that the Storeys planted would need dedicated care over the 20 years in order to survive — at a cost of more than $700,000.

He scoffed at suggestions by the Storeys that, because the new “resort” trees were on Mr Banks’s property, he should be liable for their care.

He said: “Why should he be saddled with the lifetime obligation for someone else’s idea?

“It is a matter of principle. You can’t have resort trees that generate a cost to the injured party and allows Mr Storey to achieve a goal by his wrongful act.”

Mr Justice Mussenden will deliver his ruling at a later date.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers