Reform’s Welsh spokesman loses court case over neighbours’ ‘intimidating dogs’

Martin Shipton

Reform UK’s spokesman in Wales has lost a court battle with his Michelin-starred chef neighbours after complaining about the “intimidating” behaviour of their two dogs.

Oliver Lewis first took Stephane Borie and Sarah Francis to court in November 2023, following a series of complaints about their “brown Labrador and a smaller white dog”, which he claimed were putting his relatives in fear.

Mr Borie and Ms Francis formerly ran the Michelin-starred Checkers restaurant in Montgomery, Powys. They let their dogs roam free in a yard in front of their four-bed detached house in Montgomery, over which Mr Lewis has a right of way to access his own home behind theirs.

‘Irritated neighbour’

Mr Lewis claimed that his neighbours’ dogs were intimidating his mother, nieces and nephews and should not be allowed out in the yard unrestrained. He claimed the dogs were “quick on their feet … had guard dog characteristics, barked and charged at users”.

But his case was thrown out at Welshpool Magistrates Court after Judge Gwyn Jones said he was an ‘irritated neighbour’ whose evidence of the dogs’ misbehaviour was “weak” and had been undermined during the trial.

A vet expert in canine behaviour told the court that video footage showed the dogs were “not defending their territory”.

The judge found that Mr Lewis’ own evidence about the dogs “was not such as to enable me to hold that there was a nuisance”, adding: “To establish a nuisance, a material interference with the ordinary physical comfort of human existence must be demonstrated. The evidence in this case did not meet that evidential standard.

“The applicant, whilst polite and courteous, was nonetheless unable to see or accept that his case was too weak to succeed.”

At the close of Mr Lewis’ case, the judge allowed a submission of no case to answer and dismissed the application.

He went on to order that Mr Lewis should pay a total of £10,123.20 for his neighbours’ costs of fighting the case, saying that as the prosecutor he was responsible to pay since it was “unnecessary or improper” for the case to have been brought to court at all.

Appealed

Mr Lewis appealed to the High Court, with his lawyers arguing that he had done nothing wrong. His case had not been so obviously weak before the trial that he should not have brought it.

In his ruling Mr Justice Kerr stated: “The [original] judge’s decision on costs was based on his finding that there was an ‘unnecessary act’ and that the unnecessary act was bringing the proceedings when the appellant should have known, and would have known, had he properly and objectively analysed the evidence, that the claim for statutory nuisance was so weak that it was bound to fail.

“For my part, I accept that … the outcome of a nuisance case based on the behaviour of dogs is difficult to predict and that opinions about the likelihood of a conviction might reasonably differ where it is clear that the dogs’ behaviour is causing distress and annoyance, there is a warning sign about the dogs and there is evidence – even if later not accepted – of people being deterred by the dogs from visiting the location.

“The private prosecution here is of a specified statutory kind which parliament has deliberately chosen to put into the hands of a person aggrieved, who by definition has a personal interest in the outcome or he would not be aggrieved.

“I am in no doubt that if this appeal were to fail, there would be a chilling effect on exercise of that remedy, which parliament has chosen to entrust to the citizenry at large. For those reasons, I am persuaded that the judge’s decision is wrong and cannot stand.”

The judge set aside the ruling that Mr Lewis must pay his neighbours’ costs and instead ordered them to be paid out of the public purse, except for the cost of their veterinary expert.