A simmering legal battle between two Paget neighbours over alleged intrusions into each other’s property has progressed to a Supreme Court trial.

Samuel Andrew Banks, who owns 17 Inglewood Lane, has argued that Simon and Deirdre Storey, the owners of 13 Inglewood Lane, cleared trees on his property to build a road.

The Storeys have said that Mr Banks built a gate partially on their property and accused him of trespassing and causing a nuisance on his side of the border.

At the start of a Supreme Court trial yesterday, Jeffrey Elkinson, representing Mr Banks — the husband of former premier Dame Pamela Gordon — told the court that the Storeys had removed a section of woodland reserve near his house.

While he said the Storeys claimed that trees in the area had been lost by the back-to-back impacts of hurricanes Fay and Gonzalo, Mr Elkinson said the neighbour never notified Mr Banks of any such storm damage.

“He never told Mr Banks that it happened, and then Mr Storey says in his own evidence that Mr Banks couldn’t see the area of woodlands from their house and they never came onto it,” he said.

Mr Elkinson told the court Mr Storey knew exactly where the border to the property was and had commented that he was surprised how close it was to the edge of his house.

He argued that Mr Storey cleared the trees to create a path for construction vehicles to do work on the southern side of his property, and then replanted the area with plants that he thought were attractive.

“The only way the vehicles could come through is on the road that Mr Storey constructed for his own benefit, knowing full well where the border was,” he said.

Mr Elkinson also said Mr Storey went on to built a patio for his house without planning permission or a building permit.

Mr Banks, giving evidence, said the dispute arose after Dame Pamela noticed a planning notice for the neighbouring property for the installation of solar panels, and discovered satellite pictures showing that a swath of trees on their property had been removed.

He described what he had seen as “massive deforestation” of a portion of the woodland reserve and went with Dame Pamela to see the state of the area.

“It was really quite appalling,” he added.

Mr Banks acknowledged that he had not walked through the woodland often after he purchased the property, except in the wake of hurricanes Fay and Gonzalo.

“We had been advised not to go into the woodland reserve,” he said. “We just let it be.”

While Mr Banks said in a statement that he noticed ornamental plants and a large berm when he went through the area in 2021, he accepted that he did not take any pictures and could not identify what the ornamental plants were.

“I saw more than 100 plastic pots that had been discarded on my property and knew planting had been done,” he said.

He denied that he had entered Mr Storey’s property while surveying the area, stating that he and his wife remained in the woodland reserve.

Under cross-examination by Keith Robinson, who represented the Storeys, Mr Banks acknowledged that a tennis court on his property had been built partially on woodlands reserve.

However, he said that the project was given the go-ahead after it was agreed that woodland reserve lands would be expanded elsewhere on the property to create a net gain in reserve space.

Mr Robinson also questioned Mr Banks about the location of his right of way to the property and a gate.

Mr Banks conceded that a survey of the property had found that the gate was partially erected on Mr Storey’s property and that there was a “conflict” as to the location of a legal roadway.

The matter, before Chief Justice Larry Mussenden, is expected to continue in the Supreme Court all this week and resume in January.

• 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