A retired banking boss was left appalled after his neighbour demolished his door. Former top executive Nicholas Patrick-Hiley, 64, alongside his wife Lisa, emerged victorious with a £10,000 court win against Parliament’s master bell-ringer, Adrian Udal, 65, after he tore out the front gate of their plush £2 million Fulham residence, in west London.
The ex-finance chief purchased the lavish home back in August 2023 to mark his well-earned retirement, but celebrations were cut short when they discovered the bell ringer had knocked down their door and roller gate. Mr Udal defended his actions, claiming he owned the land when removing the original gate and setting up a new one at his neighbours’ driveway end.
The aggrieved couple launched legal action for an injunction against Mr Udal, highlighting grave “security concerns” as they sought to install fresh gates at the entrance leading to their domicile.
In response to the dispute, Judge Nicholas Parfitt KC delivered justice in favour of the Patrick-Hileys, landing Mr Udal with a hefty bill of £10,000.
A seasoned performer, Mr Udal has years of service as the bell-ringer for St Margaret’s Church, nestled beside the prestigious Westminster Abbey – the Parliament’s go-to place of worship.
The Patrick-Hiley home is tucked behind Mr Udal’s, reached via a shared drive and passageway. Although Mr Udal owns the drive and pathway, the Patrick-Hileys maintain indisputable access rights.
A dispute over a passage that did not include driving or parking a vehicle on it escalated into a court case.
Representing the Patrick-Hileys, Mark Warwick KC informed Mayors and City County Court that the incident began when they discovered Mr Udal demolishing the door and gate around midday on moving day.
The bell ringer continued with the demolition works into the early evening, accompanied by another individual. “They were also disconnecting wiring that connected the property to various services,” stated Mr Warwick KC.
Ultimately, Judge Nicholas Parfitt KC ruled in favour of the Patrick Hileys, stating that Mr Udal was “a poor witness who came across as preferring his own perception of what might be helpful to his own case, regardless of any objective reality”.