The Independent, on UK Politics, 23 October 2026

6.0out of 10Serious

with traveller site owner over

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.3 findings

Become an Independent member to bookmark this article Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Membership today. Join today Already a member? Log in A mega-rich earl has won a £100,000 fight with the owner of an unauthorised traveller site after claims he threatened to invade a wood on the aristocrat's estate insisting it was his. Kenneth Mackay, the 83-year-old fourth Lord Inchcape, hired a team of dog-handler security guards as well as taking court action after local traveller site owner Leeroy Johnstone laid claim to part of a wood the earl owns near his home at Manor Farm, Clyff Pypard, Wiltshire , and began fencing it off.

The earl's lawyers told London's High Court that he spent £100,000 on guards and surveillance cameras to secure his property, whilst Mr Johnstone - who claimed to have bought the land fair and square "from a farmer" - threatened to bring down "50 people and 15 dogs to the woodland...to fight them" during a "confrontation" with the aristocrat's security guards in July this year. Mr Johnstone also owns land in the nearby village of Clyffe Pypard, where he has been involved in a long-running planning dispute after turning it into a traveller caravan site without permission.

The earl's barrister Joseph Meethan told Mr Justice Marcus Smith that “there is a concern that the activity on the woodlands was also trying to develop it in some way, which would place Lord Inchcape at potential risk of being in breach of planning control”. He added that Mr Johnstone had at one point turned up at the earl's house and attempted to show him what he claimed was an ownership document relating to the woods "on his phone" but that Lord Inchcape had refused to see him.

After being told that there had been a "persistent campaign against the guards at the woodlands" led by Mr Johnstone, the judge went on to make an order declaring that Lord Inchcape is the legal owner of the woods and made permanent an earlier temporary injunction banning Mr Johnstone from the land. "It does appear as if Mr Johnstone is the prime mover, and his motivation is his completely unfounded assertion to title over the woodlands," the judge commented. open image in gallery The Earl of Inchcape outside court ( Champion News ) Lord Inchcape is a descendant of the immensely wealthy colonial era shipping tycoon, James Mackay, who was boss of the P&O line and became the first Earl of Inchcape in 1929.

The current earl served in the Royal Lancers before moving into business, farming and landowning. As well as his farm estate in Wiltshire, which he bought in 1978, the earl also owns the 12,800 acre Glenapp Estate in Ballantrae, Ayrshire , where his forebears started out, and back in 2005 the Sunday Times Rich List estimated his wealth at around £50m. The elderly peer’s barrister told the court that earlier this year he was forced to enlist a team of security guards and dogs to patrol the woodland area by day and night after Mr Johnstone claimed to have bought the land.

The bill for securing the woodland - including putting in sophisticated camera surveillance gear - ended up at over £100,000, the court heard. Mr Meethan accused Mr Johnstone of "harassing the guards, including with threats to bring large numbers of people and dogs to fight them and telling them to get their weapons ready". In a statement to the court, old Etonian and former cavalry officer Lord Inchcape insisted he owns the woodland, having bought it nearly 40 years ago.

He said he and his family first learned of the intrusions when “he became aware of trees being felled and a fence being constructed within a part of Manor Farm”. Despite blocking the entrance with tree trunks and installing CCTV cameras, the invasions carried on and on four occasions in July, Mr Johnstone was seen on camera installing fence posts with another man, the court was told. The case first reached the High Court in August when Lord Inchcape secured a temporary injunction barring Mr Johnstone from the woodlands, with the earl citing fears of “threats of violence, intimidation and harassment on the part of Mr Johnstone and unknown persons accompanying him”.

The earl returned to court accompanied by his wife Georgina, Countess of Inchcape, and son Viscount Glenapp, asking Mr Justice Marcus Smith to declare him the legal owner of the disputed woods, extend the injunction to cover the unknown intruders and make the injunction against Mr Johnstone permanent. open image in gallery An aerial view of Manor Farm ( Supplied by Champion News ) His barrister said Mr Johnstone in his claim to ownership of the land had been "seeking to rely on documents which he would not provide to Earl Inchcape's solicitors and which he still will not back with a statement of truth."

"The purported sale from an unnamed farmer appears at best suspect," he added. Mr Johnstone did not attend court to give his account of the incidents and was not represented he but had recently instructed his own solicitors and "lately accepted that judgment should be entered against him," said the judge. At the end of the hearing, the judge made permanent the injunction barring Mr Johnstone from the land, also recognising that Lord Inchcape is the registered owner of the disputed plot.

However, he declined the earl’s bid to extend the injunction to cover any unknown trespassers after noting that only Mr Johnstone is alleged to have infringed the court ban on entry since it was first imposed in August. Mr Johnstone’s alleged breach of the injunction occurred on September 14 when he came to Lord Inchcape’s house and asked to speak to him, said the judge. “I was present at the time but my wife refused his request,” said Lord Inchcape in his written evidence, adding “my wife told me he said that he had bought the land off a farmer and she told him that any documents should be sent to our solicitors, but he provided no evidence of the alleged property (ownership).”

Making the court orders, the judge said: "It’s clear from the evidence that the first defendant [Mr Johnstone] has been the prime mover in terms of orchestrating the trespass and harassment described in the various witness statements before me. "It’s not possible to be clear as to the motivation behind the various trespasses that occurred because it’s frankly not known why the first defendant has been acting in the way he has. "[But] it does appear as if Mr Johnstone is the prime mover, and his motivation is his completely unfounded assertion to title over the woodlands."

“I very much hope that’s an end of it,” the judge concluded after making the orders. Lord Inchcape’s great-grandfather - the first earl - was the son of a ship’s master from the west coast of Scotland who went on to found a massive shipping conglomerate during the Victorian era, exploiting the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 to build up lucrative shipping interests linking India and Europe . He also played a high profile role in foreign relations, acting as special ambassador to China in 1901, and was made a baron by King George V for his services to the nation, including his advice on adopting the gold standard to stabilise currency.

He was later appointed chairman of P&O and died on his yacht in Monaco in 1932, leaving a fortune with a current value of around £33m. The first earl's daughter was the renowned and glamorous aviator, Elsie Mackay, who also had a parallel silent movie career under the name Poppy Wyndham, but disappeared in March 1928 while attempting the first flight of the Atlantic from east to west. She and her First World War veteran co-pilot vanished without trace on their record-breaking bid, with some debris washed up off the Irish coast suspected to be their plane.

Read the original article on independent.co.uk (opens in a new tab)
What we found (3)

The Independent reports a High Court win for Lord Inchcape over woodland that Leeroy Johnstone claimed to own, and the body attributes the allegations carefully. The headline puts 'invade' in quotation marks though nobody in the article said it, and calls the case a '£100k fight' when £100,000 is only what the earl spent on guards. The opening also inflates the quoted threat of 50 people and 15 dogs into 'an army'.

  1. Headline goes beyond the article

    Serious

    “threats to 'invade' his woods”

    Why this matters
    The headline puts the word 'invade' in quotation marks, as if someone said it.
    The impression it gives
    A reader believes Mr Johnstone, or a witness quoted in court, threatened to 'invade' the woods in those words.
    The context
    No one quoted in the article uses the word. The threat the court heard was to bring "50 people and 15 dogs" to fight the guards. 'Invade' and 'invasions' appear only in the outlet's own paraphrase.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“threatened to bring down”
    • Elsewhere in the article“threats to bring large numbers of people and dogs to fight them”

    Show it in the article

    Written straight

    Earl wins injunction against traveller site owner accused of threatening to bring 50 people and 15 dogs to fight guards in disputed woods.

  2. Uses figures that mislead

    Minor

    “Mega-rich Earl wins £100k fight”

    Why this matters
    The headline ties the £100k figure to the win itself with the words "wins £100k fight".
    The impression it gives
    A reader believes the earl won £100,000, or that the court case was over a £100,000 sum.
    The context
    The body says £100,000 is what the earl spent on guards and cameras. The article reports no award of damages or costs. The court declared ownership and granted an injunction.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“he spent £100,000 on guards and surveillance cameras to secure his property”
    • Elsewhere in the article“The bill for securing the woodland”
    • Checked against the whole articleIt never uses the words “damages”.

    Show it in the article

  3. Uses a loaded word

    Minor

    “with an army of men and dogs”

    Why this matters
    The outlet turns the alleged threat into "an army of men and dogs" in its own voice.
    The impression it gives
    A reader pictures a threatened mass, military-style assault.
    The context
    The quoted allegation is a threat to bring 50 people and 15 dogs to fight the guards. 'Army' is the outlet's word.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“50 people and 15 dogs to the woodland”

    Show it in the article

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from The Independent

  1. 23 OctThurrock Council worker made redundant three days before 55th birthday misses out on £350k3.0
  2. 23 OctBusinesses to save £800m on paperwork under Healey's new plan3.0
  3. 23 OctDavid Carrick rape victim calls for Met police chief to resign after legal claim0.0
  4. 23 OctPrepare for ‘state-sponsored terrorism’ and cyber attacks to cause food shortages, Wes Streeting warns0.0
  5. 23 OctChancellor unveils £800 million savings for businesses by slashing pointless paperwork6.0

Everything we scored from The Independent