Golders Green dad 'growled' at couple who refused to hand his son's football back

 Furious Mr Adler demanded that he return it because his young son was in tears, it was said.

 He then ranted at and threatened Mr Bergson, using "aggressive body language”, which caused him and his wife to fear an attack.

Now, after being sued by the Bergsons for harassment, fire alarm company boss Mr Adler, 34, faces having to pay damages and a potentially huge lawyers' bill.

Judge Stephen Hellman KC found that although Mr Bergson should not have confiscated the ball, Mr Adler had overreacted and harassed the couple.

The angry dad's parents, Zavy Adler, 72, and Esther Adler, 68, who own the large £1m property next door to the Bergsons' home, also face having to make payouts following the dispute.

Judge Hellman KC said the row had been an "unhappy case about a neighbours' dispute that got out of hand" after the Bergsons moved in next door to Mr Adler's parents in 2017.

Zavy and Esther Adler had lived in their home in Highfield Avenue, Golders Green, for 40 years and brought up a family there, the court heard.

The Adlers and the Bergsons had first clashed in August 2017 when Dr McAndrew-Bergson was hanging out clothes and water suddenly began spilling into the garden from next door.

Her husband, a motoring law specialist, went to investigate and quickly realised that the flood had been caused by water overflowing from the Adlers' grandchildrens' paddling pool.

Giving evidence to the court, Mr Bergson said that when he remonstrated with his neighbours over the water, Zavy Adler flew into a rage, rushed at him and followed him back to his garden.

Mr Adler senior had been "ranting and raving" and "dancing around in a frenzy," abusing psychologist Dr McAndrew-Bergson with a particularly offensive Yiddish term, it was claimed.

The police were called and, although Mr Bergson and Zavy Adler had later shaken hands, the Bergsons claimed the incident was the start of a "campaign of harassment”.

They complained about being subjected to the constant noise of building work, which also blocked the pathway to their flat, and regular noisy family get-togethers next door.

A football was "crashed" repeatedly against the fence separating the gardens every weekend as a means of "intimidating" them, and they had resorted to taking British Library memberships so they had somewhere peaceful to go, they said.

The Bergsons claimed that the alleged campaign against them culminated in two confrontations with Chaim Adler over a long weekend in May 2018.

The Adler children's football was at the centre of the row, with the Bergsons becoming exasperated at the constant noise of it being kicked against the fence.

Pushed to the end of their patience, Dr McAndrew-Bergson had grabbed it when it came into her garden and thrown it over another neighbour's fence.

On another occasion over the same weekend, when the football again landed in his garden, Mr Bergson confiscated it.

This resulted in Chaim Adler becoming enraged and twice entering the Bergsons' garden, once with a "small army" of Adler family members, who the Bergsons claimed had decided to use them as their "evening entertainment”.

On the first occasion, he was "snarling" and mocking Mr Bergson, but on the second had attempted to push his way into their flat while demanding the ball back “aggressively", they claimed.

Dr McAndrew-Bergson said they had shut the door on him, but Chaim Adler was incensed, banging on the door, pressing his face against the window, "baring his teeth and growling" at them.

In what the judge called "haunting" evidence, she said her husband had also been surrounded during the weekend, with Chaim Adler mocking him, shouting "here here" and repeatedly kicking his right leg in the air.

At one point, Esther Adler had also gone to see the Bergsons and told them they had no right to live next door and, if they didn't like noise, they should leave, she said.

In the witness box, Chaim Adler denied doing anything wrong, saying that he was merely protecting his son, who had been shouted at and reduced to tears when he asked for his ball back.

He said he had gone and had a "back and forth" with Mr Bergson in the doorway of his flat, but Mr Bergson had shut the door and did not return the ball.

Judge Hellman, who heard the case in March this year, delivered judgment last week, following a delay caused by the death of Mr Bergson.

Judge Hellman said trouble between the neighbours was always a risk, because they were such different people with different interests in life.

Delivering his judgement, he said: ”The Adlers enjoyed family gatherings at weekends and religious holidays - the Bergsons were a mature couple who enjoyed peace and quiet.

"Their living next door to each other was always going to be a potential source of tension."

He said there was truth to both sides' accounts of the paddling pool incident and that Mr Bergson and Zavy Alder had “overreacted”.

The Bergsons' description of Zavy Adler's behaviour was mostly accurate, he found, but the incident was a "one-off" and so it couldn't be considered to have been harassment, he found.

Noisy activity in the Adlers' garden on weekends was also perfectly normal and not part of a "campaign of harassment”, since it was a family home.

And although the football might have been kicked loudly and often against the fence, there was no evidence that the Adlers had been told the Bergsons were irritated by it, he found.

However, he found that the claims against Chaim Adler following the incidents over the weekend in May 2018 were well-founded and that he had harassed them and trespassed on their property.

 "He was angry because they had twice reduced his eight-year-old son to tears," he said.

 "The depth of his anger came across very clearly when he was giving evidence."

But, although Mr Bergson should have given the ball back when requested and Dr McAndrew-Bergson should not have thrown it over the other neighbour's fence, his response was not justified, he continued.

 "I am satisfied that Chaim Adler pursued a course of conduct which, although targeted at Mr Bergson, amounted to harassment of both claimants, which he knew or ought to have known amounted to harassment," he said.

 "It was likely to and did cause alarm and distress.

 "I accept he was angry because they had upset his son, but he has not shown me that his course of conduct was reasonable and I am satisfied that it was not."

 He said Mr Adler had trespassed on the Bergsons' property and, using "aggressive body language”, caused them to fear an attack.

The judge also found that items deposited on the path leading to the garden flat by builders working on Mr and Mrs Adler's home amounted to an interference with the Bergsons' right of way, since they must have known of the state of the path.

The judge adjourned the case until a later date, when he will decide what Dr McAndrew-Bergson should get in damages from the senior Adlers for the interference and from their son for the harassment and trespass.

He will also then decide who will have to pay the lawyers' bills for the case, which are likely to be substantial, having taken up three days in court, with another hearing still to come.

However, he urged the parties to try to agree the level of damages and who pays the costs of the case without returning to court.

 "It is sad that matters have got this far," the judge said.

 "It may be that - one second to midnight - the parties can resolve the remaining matters between them.

 "I strongly encourage everyone to attempt to do that."