The legal dispute centred on a hedge separating two homes in Torquay, England, with a disagreement over a few millimetres of land eventually turning into a costly court battle.A homeowner who lost an appeal over the precise position of the boundary between her property and her neighbour’s has been ordered to pay £108,402 upfront towards 70% of his legal costs, as per court documents.The case involved Ms Douglas, owner of 43 Mead Road, and Mr Channon, who owns the neighbouring No. 41. Their disagreement concerned whether the boundary ran along the outer edge of a hedge or through the area where the hedge stood.
Court rules on hedge boundary
The dispute reached Plymouth County Court, where a trial was held from August 18 to 26 last year. Judge Mitchell considered evidence from surveyors, photographs and other material before determining the boundary.Mr Channon’s expert, civil engineer Mr Barber, had identified a line known as A-H-B as the boundary between the properties.Ms Douglas argued that the boundary should instead run along the hedge’s outer edge because she maintained that the hedge belonged to her property.The hedge had already been removed, making it impossible for the court to examine its exact position.The judge considered the legal principles governing boundaries formed by hedges. He found that where a hedge belongs to one property, the boundary would generally follow the outer edge of its stems or trunks, rather than the furthest point reached by its leaves.However, the judge found that the difference between that position and Mr Barber’s A-H-B line was only a matter of millimetres.He therefore applied the legal principle of de minimis, which means a difference is so small that the law treats it as insignificant, and declared A-H-B to be the boundary.
Homeowner challenges the decision
Ms Douglas appealed, arguing that the trial judge had identified one boundary under the applicable legal principle but then adopted a slightly different line as the property’s actual boundary.Her lawyers also argued that experts should first have been required to establish the precise legal boundary. If they could not agree, they said, the court could then have considered the issue at another hearing.The Court of Appeal rejected those arguments.The appeal court noted that the trial judge had considered the expert evidence, photographs and other material and had personally visited the properties. It found that he was entitled to conclude that the difference between the competing lines was only a few millimetres.The court also rejected the argument that the ruling effectively deprived Ms Douglas of part of her property. Any difference in the amount of land involved was considered too small to have legal significance.
Other claims added to the dispute
The boundary was only one part of the wider case.Ms Douglas had also brought allegations involving trespass and nuisance against Mr Channon and a previous owner. She sought damages and other remedies, including claims related to work that she said had destabilised her land.Mr Channon denied the allegations and filed counterclaims of his own. They included claims involving nuisance, trespass, alleged harassment and the value of his property.His counterclaim was worth more than £200,000, although much of it was unsuccessful.The judge also found that Ms Douglas’s main claim had failed, including her allegations concerning stabilisation work.
Appeal court upholds £108,402 costs order
Ms Douglas argued that she should not have to pay such a large share of Mr Channon’s legal expenses because she had successfully defeated most of his counterclaim.The Court of Appeal disagreed.It said judges can consider which party succeeded on the main issues, how much those issues contributed to the overall case and how the litigation was conducted. The trial judge had already taken Mr Channon’s unsuccessful counterclaims into account when deciding the costs.Instead of making Ms Douglas responsible for all of Mr Channon’s costs, the judge ordered her to pay 70%.The Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal, leaving both the boundary ruling and the costs order in place.Ms Douglas must therefore pay £108,402 upfront towards Mr Channon’s costs, with the final amount to be determined under the 70% order.The court battle ultimately turned on a boundary difference measured in millimetres, but the wider litigation involved expert evidence, multiple claims and substantial legal costs.