A retired banking boss and his wife have won £10,000 in a court battle with Parliament’s master bell-ringer after he ripped out the front gate to their £2million west London home when they moved in.
Nicholas Partick-Hiley – a former Panmure Gordon Securities top executive – bought his mews cottage in Fulham, in August 2023, planning to make the elegant, sprawling property a dream home for his retirement alongside wife, Lisa.
However the 64-year-old ex-financier was shocked when he arrived to find his bell-ringer neighbour, Adrian Udal, 65, demolishing the door and roller gate of his new home in an act of ‘wanton destruction’.
Mr Udal, who had lived next door to the couple’s property for 30 years, claimed he had merely been asserting rights over land he owns when ripping out the previous gate and installing a new one at the end of the driveway.
The couple sued for an injunction against Mr Udal, claiming the right to put up new gates across the opening which leads to their house, citing ‘security concerns’ in the affluent street.
They also said Mr Udal had been involved in a dispute with the previous owner of their home, adding that the bell master deliberately plotted to eliminate the gate fronting his new neighbours’ property before they moved in.
Judge Nicholas Parfitt KC has since handed victory to Mr and Mrs Partick-Hiley, ordering Mr Udal to pay the couple £10,000 as he ruled bell-ringer’s actions to be ‘unjustifiable and unneighbourly’.
He described it as a ‘wrongful act of wanton destruction…which any reasonable and objective person should have realised would cause considerable upset and discomfort.’
Mr Udal is a veteran bell-ringer at St Margaret’s Church next to Westminster Abbey, which acts as the church for the Houses of Parliament.
The two neighbouring homes have unusual an layout, with the Patrick-Hileys’ home situated behind Mr Udal’s property and is reachable via a drive and a passageway, the court heard.
The drive and passageway, which run under Mr Udal’s home are owned by the bell-ringer, but the Partick-Hileys have the right to pass over it to get to their house.
Mr Udal insisted that their rights over the passage did not include passing through by car or parking a vehicle on it.
Representing the Patrick-Hileys, Mark Warwick KC told Mayors and City County Court that the incident began when they found Mr Udal destroying the door and gate at around 12pm on move in day.
Despite being ‘astonished’, he said Mr Patrick Hiley ‘endeavoured to remain calm’ and contacted his solicitors but ultimately ‘felt helpless’, as Mr Udal and another man continued with the demolition work until around 5pm.
‘They were also disconnecting wiring that connected the property to various services,’ Mr Warwick KC said.
‘No advance warning of any kind had been given by Mr Udal, or anyone on his behalf, that such extraordinary behaviour was going to happen.
‘His actions were plainly carefully pre-planned. No amount of persuasion, including the involvement of the police, has caused him to resile, or seemingly regret, his actions.
‘The impact of these actions, and contentions, has been serious, their quiet enjoyment and actual enjoyment of their home has been disrupted.’
Mr Partick-Hiley and his wife said they were aware of the conflict between their home’s previous owner and Mr Udal before moving in, but they hoped it had been resolved by August 2023 until Mr Udal was witnessed dismantling the disputed gate.
The couple insisted they have the right to erect and site entrance gates ‘on either side of the opening that runs under part of Mr Udal’s house,’ plus the right to park a car in the area.
They went to court seeking an injunction preventing Mr Udal interfering with their rights, which they claimed allows them to attach gates to the side of Mr Udal’s house and so block off access to the passage.
Their barrister told the judge they had done their utmost to deal in a measured way with Mr Udal even before moving into their new home.
It was heard that the couple contacted Mr Udal two months before moving explaining that they planned to install ‘better looking and more functional gates’ once they moved in.
They also made it clear they would welcome Mr Udal’s input on the style and design of those gates.
But in response, the couple alleged their new neighbour began to plot how to remove and install new gates, buying his own set of metal barriers on July 13, 2023.
Their barrister claimed this purchase showed that ‘he was planning to carry out the destruction of the existing gates’.
When the day of completion arrived, ‘Mr Udal and his accomplice duly set about destroying the gates and disconnecting services running through the driveway’, he added.
Soon afterwards, the couple’s lawyers wrote to Mr Udal insisting that the removed gates were their property and that it was up to them to decide what alternatives should be put in their place.
‘Mr Udal disagreed,’ said the KC, adding: ‘On 10 September, he began to hang metal gates, of his own choosing, right next to the pavement.’
Mr Udal insisted their right only extends to having the strip gated at the front of the property next to the pavement and they have no right to have a car on his land.
In submissions to the court on the master bell-ringer’s behalf, his barrister, Aaron Walder, said the Partick-Hileys’ original gate had ‘trespassed’ on his property.
However Judge Nicholas Parfitt KC ruled in favour of the Patrick Hileys, sayding 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’.
‘The overall impression was that truth for him, in the context of legal proceedings at least, was no obstacle to a clever argument about language or the other evidence.
The judge found that the gates Mr Udal removed were in the correct position and that the couple have a right ‘to pass and re-pass either on foot, or with or without vehicles’ down the drive and passage.
He added: ‘Mr Udal’s actions in respect of the roller gates and furniture was an inappropriate and wrongful act of wanton destruction designed, in my view, to, at best, take advantage of the gap between owners occurring at completion, and conduct which any reasonable and objective person should have realised would cause considerable upset and discomfort to the new owners.
‘I also find that his actions…removed the claimants’ internet cable for about six weeks; they also led to a lack of privacy and meant that Mrs Partick-Hiley in particular felt uneasy about coming home after dark.
‘This (behaviour) was inappropriate and unneighbourly and my impression of Mr Udal is that he is likely, if given the opportunity, to think of other ways in which he can interfere with the claimants’ rights if his own ability to believe his own arguments and language constructions manages to suggest them.
‘It follows that the claimants’ rights need to be vindicated by the granting of declarations and injunctions for their reasonable protection and to limit the risk of a repetition.
‘The removal of the roller gates and furniture was a trespass to property and the general conduct on 25 August 2025 was a nuisance and in particular a wrongful interference with the claimants’ easements. The defendant’s conduct has continued as a sporadic and occasional interference.’
Mr Udal was appointed Secretary of the Belfy at St Margaret’s in 2021, a medieval building next to Westminster Abbey.
Part of his role involves liaising with clergy when bellringing is needed for special church, state and parliamentary events.
The broadcast editor, who is also a bell tower captain at St Gabriel’s Church Pimlico, has a keen interest in antique clocks and was proud to have ‘rung in’ the New Year nearly annually since 2000.
Mr Partick-Hiley is a retired financier and former managing director and head of sales for North America investment banking specialists Panmure Gordon.
