Glamorous stylist, 54, locked in bitter legal battle with Notting Hill property guru neighbour after 'dust from his building work spoiled her £14,000 designer bag collection'

• e-mail

A civil war has erupted in London's trendy Notting Hill after a glamorous stylist sued her property guru neighbour over claims the dust from his building work spoiled her £14,000 designer bag collection.

Maria Serra is suing her neighbour David Harvey for more than £265,000 over claims he created disastrous 'dust ingress' in her flat whilst having an extension built, making her home 'uninhabitable'.

Ms Serra, 54, who describes herself as 'an international fashion stylist and creative director', also says her £570,000 flat was damaged by the works.

She is now suing downstairs neighbours - high end estate agent Mr Harvey and his wife Katherine - to cover damages she says she suffered, including the cost of replacing or restoring her collection of 26 vintage handbags from designers including Chanel and Paco Rabanne.

But lawyers for the couple are denying the building works caused 'dust ingress' to Ms Serra's flat and have slammed her massive damages claim as 'frankly absurd'.

Fashion stylist Maria Sella, pictured outside London's High Court, is suing neighbours over claims the dust from building work spoiled her £14,000 designer bag collection

David and Catherine, also seen outside the High Court, deny their extension work caused 'dust ingress' to Ms Serra's flat and have described her damages claim as 'frankly absurd'

This is the building in Notting Hill, west London, at the centre of the legal dispute

At a hearing before Judge Margaret Obi at the High Court in London, lawyers for Ms Serra said in written submissions that there had been 'a history of disagreements' between Ms Serra and her neighbours.

She bought her ground floor flat in a converted house in Notting Hill in 2008, after the Harveys had bought their £580,000 basement pad in the same building in 2006.

But they fell out spectacularly in 2016 and 2017, around the time Mr Harvey, 51, had commissioned workers to build a 'conservatory-type' extension at the rear of his property.

He is the boss of Horne and Harvey, an estate agents based in London's upmarket St James' district.

Edward Blakeney, for Mr and Mrs Harvey, described the building works as 'the genesis of the present dispute, with the claimant alleging that they caused substantial interference with her use and enjoyment of the ground floor flat'.

He said this as 'primarily as a result of increased new cracking and ingress of dust'.

Gavin Hamilton, for Ms Serra, told the judge in his written submissions the stylist claims her flat was pristine and 'dust free' before the building works started.

The extension caused so much dust to leak from the basement it ruined her £14,000 collection of classic designer handbags and forced her to move out, he added.

She is now suing for 'damage caused by the ingress of dust into her ground floor flat, damage to contents of the building and other financial losses caused by Mr and Mrs Harvey's building works in the basement flat below,' the barrister said.

He told the court: 'Ms Serra moved out of the flat on 27 February 2017 as after four months (she) could not cope any more with the noise, dust and general disruption.

'Ms Serra kept the flat in good condition. It was free of dust prior to the works. There is no rational explanation for the presence of dust inside the flat other than it must have come from the works below.

'It is obvious that steps could have been taken to prevent or control the escape of dust from the basement flat during the works.

'The principal allegation is the failure to have any or adequate plastic sheeting in place to contain the dust within the basement flat.'

He added that Ms Serra says her neighbours have breached the terms of the lease on their flat by causing 'nuisance, damage or annoyance' and she is also alleging negligence in relation to the way the works were done.

The barrister said she is seeking repair costs of £9,685, future repair costs of £105,110, indemnity against a service charge of £7,777 and an as yet unspecified amount for damaged fashion items including 26 handbags - worth over £14,500 - that she says now need either replacement or costly repairs.

She is also demanding storage charges to the tune of £25,435 for her high-fashion goods and mortgage payments of £116,777 from 2016 to date on the basis that she was forced to leave the flat and has not returned.

But Mr Blakeney, for Mr and Mrs Harvey, denied they are liable to pay her anything.

He insisted the extension was built in a responsible and reasonable way and that structural bracing works carried out as part of the build had increased the stability of the building as a whole, rather than causing damage.

He said: 'The works were carried out appropriately so as to minimise the escape of dust and cracking in the ground floor flat ad any dust or cracking came from other sources.

'The parties' experts agree that these structural works were well-designed, necessary to prevent future movement of the building and overall beneficial to the building.

'The defendants deny all liability as a matter of principle. Further support was provided for the ground floor flat as a result of the works.'

He said that council inspectors had attended the build after Ms Serra complained and found 'there was no sign of dust or dusty works.'

The council inspectors 'confirmed there were no visible signs of dust coming from the site even thought the claimant had complained of dust moments before,' Mr Blakeney added.

The council officers also noted 'the animosity between the parties involved,' he said.

'Part of the problem was dust already present in the ground floor flat...the defendants are not liable for the state of the claimant's own flat,' the barrister went on.

'Even if the claimant has suffered substantial damage to the ground floor flat, which, for the avoidance of doubt, is denied, that is not sufficient to make out a claim in nuisance.

'Underpinning the law of nuisance is the concept of "live and let live" and "give and take".

'The claim in negligence should be dismissed, both because it is insufficiently particularised and because there is no evidence to suggest that the defendants or their contractors acted negligently in any way.'

And he described 'the scope of the damages claimed' as 'remarkable', saying: 'The reason she is claiming damages for items that may seem trifling and that are still functional is because of her particular line of work.

'The claimant's image and that of the ground floor flat is so fundamental to the work she undertakes that everything must be pristine, even if it can still be used.

'The claimant cannot increase the liabilities of the defendants because her industry apparently precludes those from working in it to have items with any degree of dust on them and those items are particularly sensitive to dust in circumstances where ordinary items are not.'

He also called the amount claimed 'frankly absurd', telling the court: 'The claimant seeks to fully renovate the ground floor flat and is claiming for costs that blatantly have no connection to the work at all.'

He told the judge that Ms Serra's claim was 'set up to fail,' since her own particulars of claim suggested the dust might have come from other sources as well.

Mr Blakeney insisted: 'The defendants are not responsible for dust in other flats in the building and the possibility of multiple sources of dust means it cannot be shown that the dust came from the basement flat.

'Further, it is apparent that the claimant failed to take the appropriate steps to avoid any damage to her belongings. The claimant's case on quantum must be rejected.

'The claimant grossly inflated the value of her handbag collection and a claim for reinstatement value unjustified when the items can be cleaned. Upon cleaning, the claimant's losses will be minimal.'

And he slammed the storage charges claimed as 'unnecessary', saying a 'photographic schedule' would be 'just as good' as storage for the purposes of pursuing her claim.

He also there was 'no evidence that the ground floor was uninhabitable' so Ms Serra should not be claiming for mortgage payments.

The case was due to be heard in a four-day trial this week, but was adjourned after a short hearing due to issues relating to last-minute evidence being submitted and will now return to court at a later date.