A homeowner faces a legal bill of more than £250,000 after losing a marathon court battle with his neighbours over the ownership of a wall between their properties.

Ian Palfrey had fought for more than five years against Trevor and Caroline Wilson, insisting that the wall between their properties was his and that the couple had no right to raise its height so that it loomed over his conservatory.

Yesterday, Mr Palfrey, of The Stables, in Beverley, East Yorkshire, was facing a crippling bill after the Court of Appeal ruled against him, and ordered him to pay the legal costs of the case.

Lamenting the vast amounts of time and money involved, Lord Justice Tuckey told the court in London: “Resolution of this dispute is of no great practical value to either party. The costs of this exercise are out of all proportion to what is at stake. We are told that, to date, they total over £260,000, excluding VAT.”

The judge, sitting with Lady Justice Arden and Lord Justice Lawrence Collins, said that Mr Palfrey had built his modern home on the site of a former stable block and other outbuildings, once part of the Dog and Duck public house, in Dog and Duck Lane.

Mr and Mrs Wilson live next door, at Tymperon House, which dates back to 1731. Between the two houses stands the brick wall at the centre of the dispute. It measures 22 yards (20 metres) long and now stands 10ft 6in (3.1 metres) high.

The judge said that the dispute began in May, 2002, when Mr and Mrs Wilson started to build a new store and garage against their side of the wall, which involved raising its height above Mr Palfrey’s conservatory by several courses of brickwork. Mr Palfrey objected and the legal battle began. At the local county court, Judge Dowse ruled in favour of the Wilsons, deciding that the couple not only had “paper title” to the wall, but had also acquired ownership of it under the legal principle of “adverse possession”.

Judge Dowse also ordered Mr Palfrey to pay the Wilsons’ legal costs, saying that he had “unreasonably refused” to accept his neighbours’ offer that the wall should be declared “a party wall”, over which they would both have rights.

Dismissing Mr Palfrey’s appeal yesterday, Lord Justice Tuckey refused to reopen the issue as to whether the Wilsons have “paper title” to the wall.

Judge Dowse, he also ruled, had been justified in concluding that previous owners of Tymperon House had been in “adverse possession” of the wall since 1964, and had “aquired title” to it long before Mr Palfrey came on the scene.

Lord Justice Tuckey said that there was also no arguable basis for saying that Judge Dowse had been wrong to order Mr Palfrey to pay the action’s legal costs on the “indemnity basis”.

None of the parties was in court yesterday to hear the judges’ ruling.

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• Linklaters trounces rivals as UK's biggest firm
• Clifford Chance profits plunge 37 per cent
• Casual drinkers hit by spread of 'dry' zones