Abbotsley Limited & Anor v Pheasantland Limited & Ors [2025] EWHC 1327 (KB)

[2025] EWHC 1327 (KB)Case No J90PE914
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
PETERBOROUGH DISTRICT REGISTRY
27 May 2025
Before
HHJ KAREN WALDEN-SMITH
Between
ABBOTSLEY LIMITEDClaimantsVIVIEN INEZ SAUNDERSClaimantPHEASANTLAND LIMITEDDefendantKEITH MALCOLM BLACKALLDefendantCHRISTINA BLACKALLDefendantJOHN ALAN GEARINGDefendantVIRGINIA LYNN MELESIDefendantSTEPHEN JOHN NEWLANDDefendantLAURENCE ANTONY HONEYWILLDefendantDARREN HONEYWILLDefendantALAN JAMES STEELEDefendantVALERIE ANNE HOLLIMANDefendantJOY CARROLL SEILLERDefendantNEIL RAYMOND WARREN (Deceased)DefendantJEREMY CHARLES IAN BRINDLEYDefendantA PERSON KNOWN AS COLMDefendantPAUL BRENNANDefendantCAROL BERWICKDefendantKERRY BRETHERTON KC and SAMUEL WARITAY (instructed by way of DIRECT ACCESS) for FIRST AND SECOND CLAIMANTSRICHARD BOTTOMLEY (instructed by DEBENHAMS OTTAWAY LLP) for FIRST DEFENDANTMOHAMMED HAFIAZ OF LEEDS DAY for THIRTEENTH DEFENDANT (who is not taking an active part in this part of the trial)SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH, FIFTH, SIXTH, SEVENTH, EIGHTH, NINTH, TENTH, ELEVENTH, FOURTEENTH, FIFTEENTH AND SIXTEENTH DEFENDANTS are self-representing
Judgment Approved by the court for handing downHHJ KAREN WALDEN-SMITHBackgroundDate 2025-05-27
[1]This judgment is dealing specifically with my decision about a part of Mr Darren Honeywill’s evidence. I have additionally set out some of the issues that have been raised and dealt with in court over the past few days and also how, in furtherance of the overriding objective, this case can properly be concluded within the additional time I have created for this case. I am not making any final determinations with respect to matters that have not yet been dealt with in court should either party be concerned about that but given the time that will pass before judgment can be given, it is important these matters are recorded.[2]These two claims were consolidated and listed to be heard together as a great deal of the factual evidence in the two cases overlap, with the same witnesses in both matters, and the claimants and first defendant are involved in both claims. That case management decision was made in an attempt to limit the time that would need to be taken on these issues.[3]The listing of the case allowed for 15 days (between 29 April 2025 and 23 May 2025), including a site visit and both an oral opening on behalf of the claimants and a short opening on behalf of the first defendant, together with closing oral submissions. A further two days was set aside for the hearing of the action brought by the claimants against the thirteenth defendant, Mr Brindley, to take place on 27 and 28 May 2025 (“the Brindley hearing”), who has no part to play in either the forfeiture claim against the first defendant or in the allegation of water trespass.[4]Despite the court sitting both early and late, the case is still significantly overrunning. As a consequence of the overrunning, and as I had been informed by the solicitor for the thirteenth defendant that he had not been provided with the bundle for the Brindley hearing by the claimants in accordance with earlier directions, the Brindley hearing has unfortunately had to be adjourned. There will no doubt be future arguments with respect to that trial. The 27 and 28 May 2025 have now been listed for hearing of further evidence in these two consolidated claims. In addition, the court has had to clear a further two days on 4 and 6 June 2025 for the purpose of having a safety net for potentially taking further evidence. The taking of evidence in this case cannot proceed beyond that date as Counsel are unavailable. There will be directions for written submissions at the close or the witness evidence and then a final day of oral submissions on 21 July 2025. The case will therefore possibly take a total of 20 days of court time (not taking into account all the time that has been taken with the various preliminary applications made in this case or the time necessarily taken in preparation for this hearing) together with the time it will take to write a judgment involving this degree of complexity. This case has been extraordinarily expensive in terms of court resource.

Timetabling to the end of the hearing

[5]The individual defendants, who are without representation, have been very good in seeking to keep their cross examination to a minimum and not repeating matters that have already been asked and answered. It is now incumbent upon all of us to deal with the remaining evidence by no later than 4.30pm on Friday 6 June 2025 at the very latest. As was made clear on Friday 23 May 2025, before the long weekend, and without objection from any party, Mr Gearing must give his evidence and be cross examined on Tuesday 27 or Wednesday 28 May 2025 as he is not available the week afterwards.[6]Taking that into account and, looking at the current order of the remaining witnesses, Mr Darren Honeywill needs to complete his evidence and then Mr and Mrs Blackall should be dealt with on Tuesday 27 May along with Ms Holliman. On Wednesday 28 May, Colm, Mr Gearing and Ms Berwick can give their evidence. If the evidence of those witnesses can be taken efficiently, Mr Walker should be able to start his evidence on 28 May 2025 and finishing it the following week. While I have not imposed a strict timetable on either side, I am sure that the parties can understand the absolute necessity for this case to be finished by no later than 4.30 on 6 June 2025. No-one wants this case to have to continue on 9 June 2025.[7]If there are objections to what I consider to be a sensible and proportionate way to deal with the remaining evidence, in furtherance of the overriding objective, then those objections should be made before we recommence at 9.30am on Tuesday 27 May 2025. All other issues between the parties will need to be dealt with either before or after the court is sitting or at the end of the witnesses. Their evidence cannot be delayed any further.

Reasons for delays

[8]I am not making any findings with respect to what is the cause of the delays at this time. I will receive submissions in due course. However, as I will not be in a position to finalise my judgment until after closing oral submissions on 21 July 2025, which will be 6 weeks after the end of the evidence, it is appropriate to record some of those issues now.[9]I am concerned that one of the significant reasons for delays in this case are the number of points of law that have been raised during the course of evidence being given. This caused some interruption of the cross-examination of the second claimant, who is the sole director of the first claimant. Her cross examination had been loosely timetabled to take two days, but it took much longer. Part of that time was as a consequence of the number of questions asked and the manner in which they were answered (including with respect to the construction of the various agreements in this case which Counsel for the claimants conceded was not a matter for the second claimant to determine), but there were also a number of matters that arose during the course of cross examination which required claimants’ Counsel to seek the court’s permission for the embargo, against speaking about the case while the second claimant was on oath, to be lifted in order that instructions on specific points could be taken.

Recall

[10]Ms Saunders also had to be recalled. First, that recall was in order for her to be cross examined with respect to issues relating to her criminal conviction for assault, after she sought to challenge the credibility of the witnesses and the victim of that incident. Secondly, she was recalled to deal with the taking of photographs of Mr Laurence (Lance) Honeywill, the seventh defendant, when he was waiting for a cup of coffee in a café near to the court building on Wednesday 21 May 2025. Thirdly, she was recalled in order to deal with her disclosure, after her evidence had finally finished, of the “promotion agreement” dated 14 January 2020 between the first claimant and Abbey Properties Cambridgeshire Limited (“Abbey”).[11]With respect to the incident when two photographs were taken of Mr Honeywill by Ms Saunders, her allegation was that he was standing with an “aggressive stance”. She also alleged that he had moved towards her aggressively. She accepted that he had not in fact moved closer to her, when it was pointed out to her that the location of Mr Honeywill near to a stationary armchair had not altered between the two photographs – other than his feet being put together. The difference in Mr Honeywill’s size in the two photographs appears to be because he was zoomed in on the second photograph. I mention this as, not only did that incident and the consequences of it (Mr Lawrence Honeywill was sufficiently rattled by it that he could not give his evidence on the day he was expected to give evidence, and he told Mr Steele – who was in the middle of giving evidence – about what had happened) cause delay in progressing the trial, but it is an example of how Ms Saunders reacts towards the defendants, the sorts of allegations she makes, how she records her interactions with the defendants, and how important an issue conduct is in this case.[12]With respect to the promotion agreement, this had been referred to in her third witness statement dated 27 July 2023 where she said that:
“The route of pipework to make such a connection requires the permission of Abbey Homes which has in force a promotion agreement with Abbotsley over title number CB166615 through which pipework would have to be laid. They have agreed in principle to this and are known not to be obstructive in any way. All lodge owners are required to have a permanent home elsewhere and cannot use the lodge as a permanent home.”
[13]Ms Saunders did not disclose the promotion agreement in the course of standard disclosure. Her reason being that she said that she did not consider it to be relevant, despite referring to it in her witness statement. As Ms Saunders has decided not to instruct solicitors disclosure has been her responsibility. It was Mr Gearing, the fourth defendant, who cross examined her about the water pipe being on land which is included in that promotion agreement and that it could potentially interfere with the development of the site. I asked Ms Saunders whether she had disclosed the existence of the water dispute to Abbey when negotiating for the promotion agreement. She said that the existence of the water dispute would have been disclosed (as a former solicitor with conveyancing experience she knows the importance of contracting parties to know about potential difficulties) and that she had a solicitor (Anne Hall), a planner (David Mead), and a cousin land agent ( Dan Jones - who then acted for Bidwells, a well-known Cambridge local estate and land agent) who were acting for her with respect to that promotion agreement. I have made an order for disclosure of documentation setting out what communications took place in the context of that promotion agreement (excluding privileged documentation) in light of her responses to questions, although that was on a very tight timetable. I agreed with claimants’ counsel that in order to allow that to happen over the long weekend I would not be requiring a disclosure statement.[14]I am concerned that any issues that might arise with respect to that disclosure (the only two documents I have seen are two emails dated 2023 and 2024 subsequent to the promotion agreement) are not raised during the court time which I am reserving to deal with the remaining witness evidence. These issues, and others, will need to be dealt with either outside court hours or once the remainder of the evidence is complete as the obtaining of witness evidence must be the priority.

Assault conviction

[15]In addition to it being an issue that was finally dealt with by the recall of Ms Saunders, one of the matters which has given rise to controversy between the parties (and the consequential taking of court time) is the evidence relating to Ms Saunder’s conviction for assault by battery on one of the directors of the first defendant, Ms Beresford-Ambridge. Ms Saunders, through her counsel, has sought to challenge the credibility of the witnesses despite the allegation having been proven to the criminal standard, that is beyond reasonable doubt, in both the Magistrates and Crown Court. I have already ruled that this court will not go behind the determination in the Magistrates Court, by a DJ(MC), and the determination in the Crown Court, before a Recorder and two lay magistrates, that Ms Saunders has been found guilty of assault by battery. I have also already ruled that I will not allow a collateral attack on those convictions. Ms Saunders has been convicted of assault by battery and has failed in her appeal. She has made an application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) who are, I am told, currently considering the application.[16]It seemed to me that if Ms Saunders wished to question the credibility of the witnesses to that assault, without attacking the determination of two criminal courts, then she would need to show the dashcam and iPad footage relating to the incident which is physical evidence that has, at least in part, been seen by both counsel.[17]Ms Saunders made it clear that she did not want the court to see that footage and she has signed a written statement saying “I accept that there is a conviction for assault but do not want the Judge to see the videos because I am concerned that there could be an adverse impact on my application to the CCRC (Criminal Cases Review Commission).” When recalled, Ms Saunders has been challenged on that explanation by counsel for the first defendant on the basis that the CCRC will only be concerned in a case if there is a new evidence or fresh information, and Ms Saunders has confirmed that she is not putting forward any new evidence. It has also been put to her that the reason why she does not want this court to look at the dashcam or iPad videos of the incident is because of what the videos show and that they show her to have deliberately made contact with Ms Beresford-Ambridge with her car. Ms Saunders denied that, and she denied that she was lying about her account of the incident. In due course, once I have received all the submissions, I will need to make a determination on this matter, as it is highly relevant to credibility and to the behaviour of Ms Saunders.

The dispute over Mr Darren Honeywill’s evidence

[18]The dispute that has now arisen is with respect to some specific evidence given by Mr Darren Honeywill, the eighth defendant, about Ms Saunders behaviour towards him when he was with his two children, aged 11 and 12. The defendants all say that the evidence about the manner in which Ms Saunders behaves towards them is highly relevant to the issues and to providing necessary context to the allegations made by her that the defendants subject to her to “very serious anti-social behaviour”, as it was put in Counsel’s opening to this case.[19]On Friday afternoon, during the course of Mr Darren Honeywill’s evidence, Ms Bretherton submitted that he should not be entitled to rely upon part of the evidence contained in his witness statement, confirmed as part of his evidence in chief, about an incident involving Ms Saunders which he alleged had taken place when he had been with his two children. Ms Bretherton submitted that he could not rely upon it as he had not cross-examined Ms Saunders on this piece of evidence. I initially thought that it might be necessary for Ms Saunders to be recalled a second time in order that the point could be put to her and to give her opportunity to respond – particularly as the defendants (other than the first defendant) are not represented. I was concerned that, although the individual defendants had been given the opportunity to cross examine Ms Saunders, they may have fallen into error through their lack of understanding of evidential rules. However, having looked at her statements again, I took the view that it was not a good point to suggest that Ms Saunders needed to be cross examined on this point. Ms Saunders had not sought to rebut the contents of Mr Honeywill’s statement, in either her written or oral evidence, with respect to this particular incident and there was therefore nothing for Mr Honeywill to cross-examine her about.[20]Ms Bretherton also submitted that Mr Honeywill could not raise this incident it as it was not a pleaded allegation. I did not accept that assertion. It was an incident he alleged in his statement dated 23 July 2023 and the conduct of the parties is plainly an issue between the parties as the claimants rely upon the alleged “serious” anti-social behaviour of the defendants in this case in two respects: first, because Ms Saunders claims there has been trespass and harassment on the part of the defendants and secondly, because Ms Saunders relies upon the behaviour of the defendants as a reason as to why relief against forfeiture should not be granted (if she succeeds in her claim for forfeiture). Relief is an equitable remedy and conduct is a matter which will be taken into account in determining whether it is appropriate to grant relief.[21]When judging conduct a court does not cherry pick particular incidents or just receive a partial account from one side. The court needs to hear all relevant evidence. Again, I made clear on Friday that I did not agree with the oral submissions being made by Ms Bretherton on behalf of her lay client. I considered that what the submission amounted to was that a party is not able to provide evidence about a relevant incident unless the specific incident is pleaded, even if the incident is not relied upon in support of a claim or as a rebuttal to a specific allegation.[22]Having made initial determinations against Ms Bretherton’s submissions, and not having heard from the first defendant, I indicated on Friday that I would give Ms Bretherton for the claimants and Mr Bottomly on behalf of the first defendant, the opportunity to address me further once they had opportunity to research the point further. I recognised this issue arose late on Friday at the end of a long week and Counsel might require time to research and consider the point.[23]Both junior and leading Counsel for the claimants and Counsel for the first defendant have been working extraordinarily hard in this case, and they should be (as I am sure they are) thanked fulsomely by their respective lay clients for the considerable work they are putting into this case. I am certainly extremely grateful to them. Both leading Counsel for the claimants and Counsel for the first defendant had indicated on Friday that they would be working on this case during this long weekend. Given my concern about the time being taken by legal points delaying the evidence of witness evidence being taken, I did not want the dispute with respect to Mr Darren Honeywill’s witness statement relating to his allegation about Ms Saunders’ driving to be allowed to cause further delay in the remaining witnesses being able to give evidence within the additional time that the court has given.[24]I therefore asked that Counsel provide sequential written submissions to deal with the issue that had arisen with respect to part of Mr Darren Honeywill’s evidence over the weekend and, of course, I indicated that if my timetable could not be met, then I would amend the timetable. I am grateful to both leading Counsel for the claimants and Counsel for the first defendant for working with me in furtherance of the overriding objective, despite this being the weekend. I gave Counsel for the first defendant some extra time to serve his note on this point as he was delayed because of the inability to obtain instructions over the bank holiday weekend.

The evidence

[25]In his witness statement dated 23 July 2023, Mr Honeywill gives evidence about an incident that took place which he describes as follows:
“There was one incident when I was with my children 11 & 12 years old, just outside the entrance on the farmers road. Vivien Saunders tried to run me over. I was actually standing on the bank on the side of the road and she swerved off the road in an attempt to hit me. The children had fortunately just moved to the other side of the wall and I was able to get out of the way of her car. The police took statements from myself and my children on body cam. The was my first encounter with Vivien Saunders.”

Submissions on cross-examination

[26]The first point raised by Ms Bretherton on behalf of Ms Saunders is that if a party wishes the court not to accept evidence given to the court, then the evidence of that witness needs to be challenged on that point. That is known as the rule in Browne v Dunn (1894) 6R.67Hl and is set out in Phipson: Evidence (20th Ed) chapter 12-12 and has been reiterated in the Supreme Court decision of TUI UK Limited v Griffiths [2023] UKSC 48.[27]The general principle referred to is not controversial and is well-settled. If a party wishes to challenge the evidence of another then that party will need to challenge that evidence. In this case, Ms Saunders did not provide any evidence challenging the account being given by Mr Darren Honeywill that she had tried to run him over or that she swerved off the road in an attempt to hit him. With respect to the assertion that Mr Darren Honeywill cannot rely upon this evidence as he did not put this to Ms Saunders in cross examination, this is a bad point. Ms Saunders did not deal with the allegation either in her witness statements or (had there been a request and permission to do so) by expanding upon that evidence in her evidence in chief. She has not sought to challenge what Mr Honeywill alleges and therefore there is nothing upon which he needed to, or could, cross examine.[28]Subsequent to the witness statement of Mr Honeywill made on 23 July 2023, Ms Saunders provided witness statements in these proceedings on 27 July 2023, twice, (3rd and 4th witness statements); 28 November 2024 (5th witness statement); 26 December 2024 (6th witness statement), 14 February 2025 (7th witness statement); 6 March 2025 (8th witness statement). While some of these statements are focussed on other issues, such as the recusal application, within those statements Ms Saunders has at various times referred to the alleged behaviour of the individual defendants. At no time did she seek to rebut Mr Honeywill’s allegation. She chose not to. Nor did she seek, in one of the various applications she made to the court, to have his statement redacted to remove the allegation. His allegation stands as part of his evidence, and he can be challenged on that evidence. I am told that he has a video recording of that incident and while I did not order Ms Saunders to play the dash cam and iPad videos relating to her conviction for assault by battery against Ms Beresford-Ambridge, I do consider this video should be played. I am considering the conduct of the parties as it gives context for the alleged behaviour of Mr Darren Honeywill (in the same way as Ms Bretherton asks me to take into account context when considering the proven behaviour of Ms Saunders leading to her conviction). Seeing the video will be very important in my being able to understand context.[29]While Ms Saunders has not adduced any evidence to counter Mr Honeywill’s evidence on this point, so that there was nothing to cross examine her upon with respect to this matter (and therefore no need for a recall), it will be for Ms Bretherton, on behalf of Ms Saunders, to challenge Mr Honeywill by cross examining him if she is so instructed. Submissions that the allegation is not a pleaded issue.[30]The second main basis upon which Ms Bretherton submits that the court should not allow Mr Darren Honeywill to give evidence on this issue is that he has not pleaded this incident against Ms Saunders. That is correct. He did not need to. Mr Honeywill has not brought a claim against Ms Saunders for harassment. He is acting in person and in his defence, he pleads specifically to the allegations made against him but does not make allegations against Ms Honeywill and her behaviour. He does not raise the allegation that she tried to run him off the road as rebuttable to a specific claim against him. It is raised to give context to the behaviour of the parties, something Ms Bretherton highlighted in opening as being necessary to understand the case. The evidence about the attempt to run Mr Darren Honeywill off the road is what is referred to by Phipson on Evidence as an “evidentiary fact” which tends directly or indirectly to prove or disprove a fact in issue.[31]What is being submitted by counsel for the claimants with respect to Mr Honeywill’s evidence is that the court cannot hear evidence with respect to any issues between the parties unless they have been pleaded. That is not correct. In order to be admissible, it needs to be relevant and therefore go to an issue between the parties. Conduct is clearly an issue between these parties. The defendants have been consistent in referring to how Ms Saunders provokes and then films or otherwise records the reaction.[32]CPR 16.5 sets out the requirements of a defence, and Mr Darren Honeywill’s defence complies with those requirements. He does not rely upon the allegation that Ms Saunders tried to run him off the road and frightened his children to support a claim against her. He relies on that evidence, as set out in his July 2023 witness statement, as part of the factual matrix explaining how things are with Ms Saunders. It goes to context and is both highly relevant to some of the issues I have to determine (as is acknowledged by Counsel for the claimants in opening) and probative. There is nothing to make it inadmissible. What I am concerned about is whether Mr Darren Honeywill is to be believed, on the balance of probabilities, that an incident occurred where he felt Ms Saunders acted in a way which he perceived to be for the purpose of running him off the road which had the consequence of frightening his children. That goes to determinations I must make about his alleged behaviour, placing it in context.[33]Prior to Mr Darren Honeywill’s statement, in her statement dated 1 December 2022, Ms Saunders made the broad allegation that:
“Without exception the Defendants have all trespassed on Abbotsley land using the Caravan Site, and/or the footpaths as their launchpad for trespass, nuisance, harassment and violent, threatening behaviour. This is an abuse and is unreasonable user of the rights of way which the Defendants have.”
Ms Saunders further alleges in that statement that the behaviour of the defendants has been unacceptable with respect to thosewho are associated with Abbotsley and Ms Saunders, including Jenny Wisson, Simon Jefferies, Joe Jefferies, and Robert Verdier. The claimants have put the defendant’s conduct in issue with respect to forfeiture and with respect to general credibility.[34]In Counsel’s skeleton argument on behalf of the claimants it is stated that the dispute over the provision of water to the lodges “has led to acrimony and has resulted in matters which form the other part of the water cases: trespass, bullying and anti-social behaviour directed towards C2 and others lawfully on the land, by a number of the Defendants. Those matters are linked to the forfeiture claim and whether relief should be granted to D1 in light of the behaviour of those who control it [and] the extent of the breaches of the lease.” In Counsel’s opening she said that there had been “very serious anti-social behaviour [on the part of the defendants] and a long history of acrimony.”[35]Behaviour and conduct have therefore been made a central issue in the case so far as the claimants are concerned and the allegations against the individual defendants cannot be divorced from its context. For example if, as is alleged and/or admitted, abusive language has been used by some of the lodge owners, the court needs to understand when that language was used, where it was used, to whom it was directed, and the build-up to that behaviour. It is one thing to allege that someone swears at someone when it is totally unprovoked and another to say that abusive language has been used in response to serious antagonistic behaviour. While I understand that the claimant sees everything from her own perspective, and does not appear to countenance any alternative viewpoint, the role of the court is to consider all that is relevant and to reach determinations on all the relevant evidence. The court will take into account the relevant evidence of all the witnesses, including the defendants, in order to determine the issues between the parties fairly.[36]Mr Darren Honeywill, in responding to allegations of misconduct against himself and others, is entitled to give evidence with respect to how he has felt when at Abbotsley. Had Ms Saunders objected to him setting out in his own evidence his own experiences then she could have made an application at any time subsequent to July 2023 in order to have this issue determined. She did not do so, even though she is not someone who is shy to make applications, and she cannot now seek to limit Mr Darren Honeywill giving the evidence he does, given its relevance to issues of harassment and also relief from forfeiture.[37]While it is not necessary, for the purpose of this judgment, to refer to all the allegations made by the claimants against all the defendants, the second claimant makes very serious allegations, and the defendants are entitled to give their own evidence in response. By way of example, in the statement dated 1 December 2022 Ms Saunders makes the following assertions:(1) “I believe John Gearing is a pervert; I don’t mean in a sexual way. I am struggling for a suitable word to describe him … He is one of the Defendants I am most frightened of. He appears, in layman’s terms, to be completely unhinged.”(2) “I consider her [Virginia Melesi] a real danger. I háve no doubt she would persuade others to harm me. Knowing of the damage done to Robert Verdier’s property I am afraid of what she would do to Abbotsley’s property, my dog or me. She makes me feel very uncomfortable.”(3) “I perceive him [Darren Honeywill] as violent, aggressive and with a completely out of control look of rage. I don’t consider that I am safe with him living nearby …”[38]In a statement supporting Ms Saunders’ application for recusal, she also referred to a hearing on 10 August 2023 where she alleges that it was “a very intimidating hearing” and that the defendants “were permitted to smirk and jeer at me.” Ms Saunders appeared at that hearing without either of her direct access counsel. I know that there was no smirking and jeering from the individual defendants as I was managing that hearing and would not have permitted such behaviour. It is concerning to me that such an allegation was made with force, but without any foundation. I dealt with this in the recusal application in the following way:
“It is difficult for me to understand how the second claimant came to the conclusions that she has. There was no “jeering and smirking” as alleged and had there been any behaviour of that sort then I would, of course, have intervened. The short part of the transcript I have referred to above shows that I was concerned that the second claimant was visibly finding it difficult to represent herself, despite her decision to do so, and therefore gave her time to compose herself. There was nothing beyond what the second claimant was imagining. I could see what was happening and there was certainly no “jeering and smirking” or anything like it. I utterly refute any suggestion that I “approved of this conduct.”
. Ms Saunders was either genuinely imagining something happening that was simply not happening, or she was making it up. In either case it shows the absolute necessity for the court to hear evidence from both sides and it is clear that the defendants must be given a fair opportunity to put forward their own account of what has happened at Abbotsley, given the number and extent of the allegations made against them in order that the court can come to proper conclusions with respect to conduct on both sides.[39]In her written submissions on this matter, Ms Bretherton has said the following:
“there are three primary issues before the court: (1) whether the water pipe is a trespass; (2) allegations of trespass and harassment; and (3) forfeiture. The allegation that C2 attempted to run over D8 and his children has no possible relevance to (1) or (3). Nor, it is submitted, does it have any relevance to (2) in this case”
. If I adopt the same categorisation of the three primary issues for the purpose of this determination, I accept that the allegation is not relevant to issue (1), the alleged water trespass. However, the evidence is highly relevant both to issue (2) allegations of trespass and harassment raised by Ms Saunders; and (3) forfeiture. In opening, Ms Bretherton referred to the defendants engaging in very serious anti-social behaviour, that it was “important to understand that she [the second claimant] is not just being difficult”, and that the court needed to look at the defendants pattern of behaviour, and Ms Saunders convictions for assault in context. Ms Bretherton was advocating that behaviour must be seen in context and I accept that is correct. However, it cannot be correct that she argues that context should be considered with respect to the second claimant and her behaviour but is not to be applied when considering the behaviour of the unrepresented whose alleged “very serious anti-social behaviour” is being relied upon by the claimants both to establish allegations of harassment and in opposition to relief from forfeiture being granted. That might be the very definition of unfairness.[40]In all the circumstances, therefore, Mr Darren Honeywill can rely upon this evidence. The video footage can be played at the beginning of the resumption of his evidence and his cross examination can resume.