Couple granted court order over farmers’ harassment

A Perthshire couple who have been stalked by a family of farmers for several years have won their legal bid for a court order which prevents their neighbours from harassing them.

Stephen and Carol Green were told that a sheriff’s decision not to grant them an interdict which prevents the Chalmers family from engaging in anti-social behaviour with them was wrong.

Judges at the Sheriff Appeal Court in Edinburgh issued a written judgment yesterday in which they granted the Greens the interdict which they wanted.

In July 2016, the Chalmers were ordered to pay £3,000 to the Greens after another sheriff ruled they had harassed Carol for several years.

Carol, 51, was found to have had her dogs poisoned and her hedge and pot plants killed by members of the Chalmers family.

A court was told that they teamed up to make her life hell during a seven-year feud started by a row over a rat infestation that originated from their fruit farm.

John Chalmers and his sons, Thomas and Iain, and their business, were ordered to pay money to Mrs Green for the “stress and anxiety” which they caused her.

They were also ordered to pay £200 for the cost of repairing her hedge and a further £65.99 to replace 100 hawthorn hedge plants that they deliberately sabotaged with strong pesticide.

Mrs Green’s husband, Stephen, 53, told a civil hearing at Perth Sheriff Court that the way in which the owners of JAH Chalmers had acted “beggared belief”.

Another sheriff had refused to grant an interdict to the couple because he said the law regarding harassment meant that he couldn’t issue an order in the name of two people.

However, yesterday Sheriff Principal Ian Abercrombie QC, Sheriff Nigel Morrison QC and Sheriff Principle Brian Lockhart ruled the sheriff’s decision was wrong.

In the judgment, Sheriff Principal Abercrombie wrote: “The respondents made life as uncomfortable as possible for the appellants over a considerable period of time.

“As can also be seen from sheriff’s comments about the defenders’ attitude and the pointed warning he felt necessary to give them about their future conduct, we consider that it is necessary to provide the appellants with the protection they seek.”