Hampshire couple sue over 170 footballs landing in their £2 million garden; High Court awards £1,000 but allows school pitch to remain open

A Hampshire couple who complained that footballs repeatedly landed in their garden from a neighbouring school have been awarded £1,000 in damages, but the High Court has refused to shut down the facility. Mohamed and Marie-Anne Bakhaty brought a claim against Hampshire County Council after around 170 footballs entered their garden over 11 months. The balls came from the all-weather pitch at Westgate All Through School in Winchester. Judge Philip Glen ruled that footballs frequently crossing the boundary fence amounted to a nuisance, although the use of the pitch itself did not constitute an actionable nuisance.Why did a court rule against a school over garden nuisanceHigh Court Judge Philip Glen, sitting in Southampton, ruled that the frequent projection of footballs over the boundary fence constituted a nuisance. However, he distinguished this from the use of the all-weather play area itself, which he found did not give rise to an actionable nuisance. The ruling therefore recognised the couple’s complaint about footballs entering their property without prohibiting the school from continuing to use the pitch.In his written judgment, Judge Glen said he recognised that the couple were “extremely fond and proud” of their home, describing it as “on any view a beautiful home”. He also expressed concern that their response to the dispute had become disproportionate, stating that they had “become sensitised by the noise from the school” and were “over-invested in their belief that they are victims of a wrong”. He concluded: “In short, they have lost perspective.”Why did a court award £1,000 in a school pitch nuisance caseThe judge ordered Hampshire County Council to pay the Bakhatys £1,000 in damages in circumstances involving “excess use” of the play area and “significant numbers of balls” crossing the boundary fence. The award reflected the nuisance associated with footballs repeatedly entering the couple’s property, rather than a finding that the school’s entire playing facility was unlawful.Judge Glen also found that the noise from the school, whether or not the all-weather play area was in use, was “substantial, in the sense of not being trivial or transient”. He was satisfied that a substantial number of footballs had crossed the boundary before measures were introduced in 2022. The ruling did not, however, establish that the school had to stop using the pitch to resolve the dispute.How did a school try to stop footballs entering a couple’s gardenThe all-weather play area was built in 2021 and sits parallel to the boundary of the Bakhatys’ property, approximately 2 metres (6.6 feet) from their home. The couple’s property has a large garden and a swimming pool, and the garden is separated from the school facility by a wooden fence measuring 1.8 metres (5.9 feet) high.The school’s headteacher had written to the couple offering several measures to address their concerns. These included fencing off part of the area to create a buffer zone, installing a ball net and restricting use of the facility at certain times of the day. According to the BBC, the couple did not respond to the offer, but the school proceeded with measures to address the problem.Why did a court reject a ban on the school’s football pitchDespite finding that footballs crossing the property boundary amounted to a nuisance, Judge Glen refused to grant an injunction preventing the use of the all-weather play area. An injunction would have restricted the school’s ability to use the facility, but the judge did not consider such an order necessary in the circumstances of the case.The judge also indicated that a net could provide a practical way to prevent footballs and other objects from entering the neighbouring property. He said: “If a net was erected to prevent balls and other objects from crossing the boundary fence, I cannot necessarily see that there could be any real objection to opening this area up altogether.” He further stated that he did not consider that the council “threatens and intends” to “continue the nuisance”.What did the court rule in the Hampshire couple’s £1,000 garden disputeThe judgment left the school able to continue using its all-weather play area, while recognising the nuisance caused by footballs repeatedly crossing into the neighbouring garden. The court’s decision focused on the distinction between the use of the facility and the consequences of balls leaving the school grounds.The case resulted in a £1,000 damages award for Mohamed and Marie-Anne Bakhaty, but no order closing the pitch or prohibiting its use. The ruling also highlighted the importance of measures designed to prevent footballs from crossing property boundaries, with the judge identifying netting as a possible means of allowing the school facility to remain open while addressing the specific source of the dispute.You use AI every day. Now get your AI Quotient. Take the AIQ test.