The High Court has dismissed one ground of an appeal over the boundary between two Torquay houses, holding that a difference of "mere millimetres" in the line was trivial and could be disregarded.
Key facts
- Who: Neighbours in boundary disputes, particularly where a removed hedge once marked the line.
- From: 2 October 2026 (judgment date)
- Source: Sarah Douglas v Ronald Channon [2026] EWHC 2475 (KB)
Mr Justice Linden gave judgment in the High Court (King's Bench Division, High Court Appeal Centre Bristol) on 2 October 2026, after a hearing on 29 July 2026. The appeal was against two orders of His Honour Judge Mitchell, made on 26 August 2025 and 5 September 2025 after a trial at Plymouth County Court.
Background
Ms Douglas has owned the freehold of 43 Mead Road, Torquay, since 2017. Mr Channon has owned number 41, to the south, since 2021. Proceedings began on 29 September 2023. Ms Douglas claimed trespass, nuisance and harassment, and Mr Channon counterclaimed, including for harassment and loss in value of his property.
The central issue was the boundary line, which had once been marked by a hedge removed in 2018. The trial judge held that ownership of the hedge passed with number 43. Following Collis v Amphlett and Avon Estates v Evans, he held that the boundary ran along the outer edge of the hedge's growers (trunks or stems), not the outer foliage. He nevertheless declared the boundary to be the line of Mr Channon's expert, which ran through the middle of the hedge, because the difference was "a matter of mere millimetres or de minimis". The other claims and counterclaims were dismissed. Ms Douglas was ordered to pay 70% of Mr Channon's costs, with £108,402 on account.
The question
Permission to appeal was granted on two grounds. Ground 1 argued that the judge was wrong to adopt a line that was not the legally exact one, and should have had the experts plot the correct line. Ground 4 argued that Ms Douglas should not have been ordered to pay any of Mr Channon's costs.
The decision and reasoning on Ground 1
Mr Justice Linden rejected Ground 1 and dismissed it. Whether the difference was de minimis ("the law does not concern itself with trifling matters") was a question of fact for the trial judge. He had seen all the evidence and visited the site, and his finding was plainly open to him. No further evidence was needed.
Because any trespass or loss of land from the difference would itself be de minimis, the arguments based on those points failed too. The trial judge was entitled not to prolong the litigation, given its already substantial cost. Not first directing the experts to try to agree a line was not a serious procedural irregularity and did not make the decision unjust.
Ground 4
Ground 4 concerned who was the successful party and whether Ms Douglas should have paid any costs. The trial judge had treated Mr Channon as successful on the claim and Ms Douglas as successful on the money counterclaim, and apportioned costs on a "broad brush" basis rather than splitting them.
What this means for neighbours in boundary disputes
- Where a hedge within one property's curtilage marked the boundary, the trial judge applied the principle that the line runs along the outer edge of the growers, not the outer foliage.
- In this case the declared boundary ran through the middle of the hedge, because the court found the difference from the growers' edge was a matter of millimetres and could be disregarded.
- An appeal is a review of the lower court's decision, and a trial judge's findings of fact are interfered with only in limited circumstances.
- Costs in a dispute with mixed outcomes can be substantial, as this case shows.
Sources
- Sarah Douglas v Ronald Channon [2026] EWHC 2475 (KB), High Court, 2 October 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2026/2475