A toxic court battle between neighbours over a back garden culminated in one of them threatening to "shower" next door "with cat poo".
Laureen Watson is accused of making life hell for neighbours Chris Cole and Ami Komoda, who are countersuing her after she originally took them to court over four inches of land.
Ms Watson, 65, has ordered Mr Cole and his partner, Ms Komoda, to tear down an extension they built at their home in the leafy London suburb of Chiswick, claiming it strays into her garden.
But instead the new parents have retaliated, saying their neighbour subjected them to a campaign of "disgraceful" harassment which ruined their first years in their home.
The couple are demanding Ms Watson pays their substantial lawyers' bills for having to fight the "ultimately trivial" and "wholly unnecessary" dispute, saying she even went as far as threatening to "shower them" with "cat s***".
Ms Watson denies she is to blame for the bitter row.
Oxford-educated Mr Cole and fellow business expert Ms Komoda, who are founders of several various start ups, moved into the terraced home in 2013.
But they soon became ensnared in the row with beauty company director Ms Watson after building a new fence the following year when the previous one blew down.
Mayor's and City county court heard they moved into the terraced house next to Ms Watson, who was director of a beauty company, in 2013, but friction developed the following year when the couple set about building a new fence when the old one blew down.
Friction grew in 2018 when the couple decided to extend their home, with Ms Watson submitting ultimately unsuccessful objections to the council.
Ms Watson reportedly responded to the couple's letter of notification saying the work would be thrown "back over the fence", writing, "don't come to my door again".
The couple also said Ms Watson demanded that scaffolding be taken down, “screamed and shouted abuse”, and “threw buckets of water and other debris in the direction of their builders” as the extension was built, despite saying it protruded "only minimally".
In return, Ms Watson says that her neighbours unlawfully removed an iron fence post and caused £32,000 worth of damage to her home of 25 years - including to her patio and through a leak to her kitchen - over the course of the extension.
She also says the works have reduced her home's value of her home, claiming the disputed land she has used for many years on the basis of squatters' rights.
But a lawyer for the couple denies she is entitled “to any relief whatsoever”, counter-suing for damages over the alleged harassment, as they demand a judge define the line over who has rights to the tiny portion of land.
Addressing the judge, Thomas Rothwell, for the couple, claimed: “Ms Watson has, in the course of this dispute, amongst other things: strewn foul-smelling powder in large quantities around the front of my clients’ property and shouted at them when they attempted to remove it; threatened to throw 'cat sh*t' into their garden; posted hostile and aggressive notes through their front door; taken photographs and videos of them whilst they have sought to enjoy their own property.”
On top of that, he alleged Ms Watson “sprayed pungent-smelling bleach and/or disinfectant at a family member carrying out paving works in her neighbours’ garden” - and “abused and assaulted their contractors, including hurling buckets of water, other debris and verbal abuse”.
"It is inherently oppressive and unacceptable to threaten one’s neighbours, still less to threaten to shower them with animal excrement," he said.
"To be entirely clear, the court should be in no doubt whatsoever as to who is responsible for the wholly unnecessary costs of bringing this ultimately trivial matter before the court. That is Ms Watson.
"As a result of this sorry litigation, Mr Cole and Ms Komoda cannot get back what ought to have been some of the most enjoyable years of their life after the birth of their first child.
"The court should therefore finally bring this sorry saga to an end and allocate responsibility where it properly lies."
After a two-day trial, Judge Parfitt reserved his judgment on the case until a later date.
