Three falcons died and eggs were damaged after building work near a neighbouring aviary in Cornwall, sparking a legal dispute that has left former reality TV contestant Barnes Thomas facing a reported bill of around £500,000, as reported by The Independent. Thomas, who appeared on Bear Grylls’ survival programme The Island in 2018, was sued by falcon breeders Martin and Scott Nicholas, whose business operated beside his land. One of the dead birds was valued at £150,000. The Court of Appeal overturned the finding of private nuisance but upheld Thomas’s liability in negligence. The dispute has since moved towards a potential Supreme Court appeal, with both sides challenging aspects of the ruling.
Why a former reality TV star’s move to Cornwall ended in a £500,000 legal battle
Thomas moved from dealing in art in London to farming near St Just, close to Land’s End. The change of setting did not bring a quiet life. His relationship with neighbours Martin Nicholas, 43, and Scott Nicholas, 45, deteriorated as disagreements developed over activities on his property. The brothers ran Raptors of Penwith Ltd, a falcon-breeding business on adjoining land, where they raised gyr and peregrine falcons for sale to racing enthusiasts, including buyers in Dubai.The disagreement eventually became a legal battle involving both the use of the land and the potential consequences for the birds kept next door. The brothers maintained that building work on Thomas’s property had exposed their falcons to excessive noise and visual disturbance during a particularly sensitive period. They also alleged that the activity had affected breeding, resulting in lost eggs and damage to eggs caused by distressed birds. Their company brought claims for nuisance and negligence against Thomas and Upper Cot Estate Limited, his company.The High Court in Bristol heard the case over nine days in 2025. Judge Jonathan Russen KC found in favour of the falcon breeders, concluding that the conduct of Thomas and his company had caused the deaths of three gyr falcons. As reported by The Independent, the financial consequences were substantial: approximately £300,000 in compensation and interest, alongside more than £180,000 towards the breeders’ legal expenses. Thomas was also responsible for his own legal costs.
How construction work during breeding season disturbed the neighbouring falcons
The dispute was not simply about whether building work was permissible on agricultural land. The court had to consider how that work was conducted and whether reasonable precautions had been taken to avoid disturbing the neighbouring birds.According to the High Court judgment, Thomas had been told that the period from March to June was a time when excessive noise and visual disturbance should be avoided. Evidence included videos recorded inside the falcons’ incubation room while work was taking place in a barn. The judge considered that material evidence of the effect the construction activity was having on the birds.A particular incident involved a JCB digger bucket being left raised for three days close to the aviary. The machine was positioned for an engineer’s inspection, but its location meant it obstructed the line of sight from at least some of the birds in the western pens. Scott Nicholas said the falcons reacted strongly to the sight of the machinery, describing their response as becoming agitated at what appeared to them to be an unfamiliar object.The judge accepted that the activity had caused undue disturbance. He found that the three birds had died as a result of stress associated with the nuisance and concluded that the work had been undertaken without proper consideration of the breeding operation next door.
The legal argument over property rights and a neighbouring falcon business
Thomas challenged the ruling on the grounds that it placed an unreasonable restriction on how he could use his own property. His barrister, Tom Weekes KC, argued before the Court of Appeal in February 2026 that the construction of a barn and the storage of materials for Thomas’s scaffolding business were ordinary uses of land.The appeal raised a question about the extent to which one landowner should have to accommodate a neighbouring business that depends on particularly sensitive conditions. Weekes argued that the falcon breeders’ activities should not effectively require Thomas to maintain a buffer zone on his own property to protect their birds.
The judges disagreed on the legal basis for liability
The Court of Appeal dismissed Thomas’s appeal on negligence but allowed it on nuisance grounds, with each issue decided 2-1. Lady Justice Whipple found that Thomas and Upper Cot Estate Limited were liable for both nuisance and negligence. Lord Justice Nugee concluded that negligence had been established, while Lord Justice Moylan would have found neither form of liability.Lord Justice Nugee accepted that parking a digger on one’s own land was an ordinary activity. However, he considered the circumstances surrounding its placement to be decisive. The machine did not have to be left next to the aviary, and even if that location had been necessary for the engineer’s visit, the bucket should not have been left raised.His reasoning focused on whether Thomas and his company had acted with appropriate care. The judge considered that reasonable alternatives were available and that leaving the machinery in that position was unnecessary for the defendants’ purposes. The failure to take reasonable steps to avoid inconvenience to the neighbouring business supported the finding of negligence.Lady Justice Whipple agreed with the conclusion on negligence, stating that Thomas and his company should not be able to disregard their neighbours’ interests in the way they had done. She also referred to the earlier findings of fact, noting that the trial judge had rejected the defendants’ evidence and expert opinion.
A dispute that had already affected the wider neighbourhood
The falcon case formed part of a broader disagreement between Thomas and people living around his property. During the High Court proceedings, Judge Russen described the conflict as bitter and said it had gained momentum over a relatively short period.Thomas had also encountered opposition over other activities on his land, including the creation of a lake and the temporary removal of a stile on a public footpath. These incidents contributed to tensions beyond the immediate dispute with the Nicholas brothers. The compensation awarded by the High Court addressed the losses established in relation to the dead falcons, while the appeal focused on whether Thomas and his company could properly be held responsible.One of the dead birds had been valued at £150,000 and had previously won races. The figure illustrated the financial stakes involved, although the court’s decision rested on its findings about liability rather than the value of that bird alone.
