Dimwits! How court row over a light bulb cost £20k
HOW many legal experts does it take to change a light bulb?
If you’re involved in a row with your neighbours, the answer is: two barristers; two solicitors; three magistrates; an expert witness; courtroom staff; three fire experts and an estimated bill for £20,000.
That was the final reckoning after residents complained that Lesley Simkin’s rear security light was too bright.
Now magistrates have warned that they’ll take a dim view if the issue is not resolved quickly.
Company director Mrs Simkin, 66, has been given 14 days to change the bulb at the back of her house in Lytham St Annes, Lancashire.
One neighbour claimed that the beam was so bright that his children did not need to put on their own bedroom lights in order to read at night, the court was told.
his children were also said to have suffered sleep loss because of the dazzling light.
The neighbour asked Fylde Council to intervene in October and officials issued an abatement notice under environmental-protection laws, banning ‘excessive illumination’ from the security light.
But the neighbour – who lives in an adjoining house behind a row of shops – complained again and the council began legal proceedings against Mrs Simkin.
The businesswoman, who has a commercial property portfolio, initially denied breaching the abatement order and a twoday trial was called before magistrates at Blackpool.
She enlisted planning and property expert barrister Christopher Moss and also asked fire-safety expert Warren hessey to appear, backing her claim that the light was needed for the escape route from her home to be visible.
Fylde Council had hired crimi- nal barrister Rosalind emsley-Smith as well as its own legal team and two Lancashire Fire Service officers.
Both barristers draw fees of more than £1,000 a day.
And before the trial was due to start the legal teams spent several hours in court mulling over the case before coming to an agreement to give Mrs Simkin a fortnight to remove the offending bulb.
Mr Moss said: ‘If it is a nuisance the light will be removed.
‘This alleyway and stairs at the rear of [Mrs Simkin’s] property has been illuminated for safety reasons but has proved a problem for her neighbour.
‘They will have to get together and resolve what has become a rather difficult problem.’
And Miss emsley- Smith told the court: ‘We propose this case is adjourned so that she can remove the light and abate the nuisance.’
A replacement light bulb must now be fitted to the council’s specification.
Magistrate Marilyn Padgett said: ‘ We expect this to be resolved and will be very disappointed and will take a very dim view if it is not.
‘This has taken a great deal of time and money.’
After the hearing, Mrs Simkin said: ‘I have not been at the property for long. There has been a lot of refurbishment to do but I enjoy living there.’
Mrs Simkin did not comment on the dispute.
her bill for her own defence lawyers is not known, but Mrs Simkin will avoid being ordered to pay the council’s costs because she was not found guilty of any offence.
had she been convicted of breaching the abatement order, Mrs Simkin could have been left with a £20,000 fine.
‘Children could not sleep at night’