A woman who sued her neighbours for libel and slander after they told police that she had pruned their trees without permission has paid a high price for her action.

Yesterday a leading libel judge, Mr Justice David Eady, threw out both her claims, leaving her with a bill of nearly £80,000 in costs. The judge described it as a neighbours’ dispute that some might think had been blown out of proportion. It had undoubtedly caused “considerable distress and alarming expense to all concerned”.

The dispute between Barbara Buckley and James and Melanie Dalziel, of Rochdale, began in 2005. While the Dalziels were on holiday, the judge said, Mrs Buckley, who is in her fifties, authorised pruning of trees and bushes on or near the boundary between their properties. When the Dalziels, who are in their thirties, returned, they were upset at what they found.

Mrs Buckley claimed that the pruning was confined to branches overhanging or protruding into her land by at least a foot and that it had been necessary because she was having a fence built towards the edge of her land and the branches were “obstructing the process”.

But the Dalziels reported the matter to Greater Manchester Police and Mrs Buckley was arrested. The Crown Prosecution Service decided not to take action and Mrs Buckley began libel and slander actions, accusing her neighbours of being malicious in contacting the police.

Mr Justice Eady held yesterday that Mr Dalziel’s written statement to the police was a “privileged” communication and that he was therefore “immune” from being sued for libel. He also held that Mrs Buckley had left it too late before issuing proceedings.

Lawyers said after the ruling that the Dalziels’ legal bill, which Mrs Buckley will have to pay, is estimated at £27,000. Mrs Buckley, who was represented by a QC, is said to have a legal bill of about £50,000.

As defamation actions went, the judge said, the allegation was relatively trivial. He said: “Any allegation of criminal conduct has to be taken seriously, and I have no doubt that Mrs Buckley did suffer anxiety and distress over the police involvement.” But he added: “It is important to have in mind, on the other hand, that there is little or no damage to reputation, and the primary purpose of any defamation claim is to vindicate and restore reputation.

“Mrs Buckley was not accused of criminal behaviour in a vacuum. Mr and Mrs Dalziel pointed out to the police what she had done and invited them to come and see the consequences. Whether it amounted to a criminal offence, therefore, is perhaps of less significance than what she had actually done to the trees and shrubs.

“It is unreal to suggest that her reputation in the eyes of the police officer was actually damaged at all as a result of anything said by Mrs Dalziel.”

Although damage to reputation was not the only factor to be taken into account when assessing damages in such cases, it was in this case the main focus of complaint. The judge added that any distress was not confined to Mrs Buckley and, were she allowed to continue, the stress would be prolonged for the Dalziels.

More distress and damage was likely to be caused to Mrs Buckley if the case continued, with attendant publicity. The added stress might be thought disproportionate to any advantage that Mrs Buckley might gain from being allowed to proceed, he added.

The judge said that the Dalziels were now planning to move house.

Mrs Dalziel said last night: “My husband and I have been very upset by what has happened over the last couple of months.” The £27,000 awarded would not cover all their costs, she said.

Mrs Buckley, who lives with her daughter, did not comment on the case. Her solicitor, Jon Roberts, of the East Midlands firm Nelsons, said that it had been a very upsetting time for Mrs Buckley. “She is obviously very disappointed by the judgment and intends to appeal.”

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