An estate agency managing director faces a legal bill of more than £200,000 after losing a long-running boundary battle with her millionaire neighbour over a garden hedge.
Sarah Douglas, 57, bought her £700,000 hilltop home in Torquay, Devon, in 2017. The row began in 2018 when her then-neighbour removed a hedge separating the two properties. He later moved out, but the dispute did not end there.
Former rally driver and insurance businessman Ronald Channon, 87, bought the adjoining property for £1.4m in 2021. He subsequently erected a fence along the strip where the hedge had stood. Douglas insisted part of the fence was on her land. Years of disagreement eventually landed the neighbours in Plymouth County Court.
Career in estate agency
Douglas is managing director of South Hams-based estate agency Marchand Petit. She joined the firm as a manager in 2019, became associate director in March 2023 and took over as managing director later that year. Her property career stretches back more than three decades.
Before joining Marchand Petit, Douglas held senior positions at James Anderson Estate Agents in south-west London, including branch manager and director. She also worked as a branch manager at Seddons Estate Agents in Devon. Earlier in her career, she spent almost 20 years with Barnard Marcus, working in its auctions operation from 1991 before moving into private treaty sales and managing branches in Richmond and Chiswick.
Battle over millimetres
At the heart of the court case was a simple question: where did the boundary actually lie? Channon argued that it followed the stems of the former hedge. Douglas maintained that the boundary extended to the hedge's “southernmost leaf”. If correct, that would have put the fence inside her garden.
Judge Paul Mitchell rejected her argument. He said a boundary based on foliage could move depending on how much the hedge grew or was trimmed. Instead, he ruled that the boundary followed the southern outer edge of the hedge stems. The judge later accepted a line through the middle of where the stems had stood. He found that the difference amounted to just millimetres.
£200,000 counterclaim thrown out
The dispute went beyond the fence. Douglas argued that the original hedge belonged to her and that it helped stabilise the stepped bank between the homes. She sought ownership of the disputed strip, an injunction and damages relating to the bank.
Channon responded with a £200,000 counterclaim, which included alleged loss in the value of his home, harassment and nuisance. The court dismissed his counterclaim. But Channon won the key boundary battle, with the court finding that his fence stood on his own land.
Judge Mitchell ordered Douglas to pay 70% of Channon's legal costs, estimated at more than £300,000. She was ordered to pay £108,402 upfront, pending a full assessment. Her eventual contribution could exceed £200,000.
High Court challenge fails
Douglas then took the fight to the High Court. She argued that defeating Channon's £200,000 counterclaim should have resulted in a different costs order. She also challenged the precise boundary adopted by the county court, arguing that accepting a line through the middle of the former stems had deprived her of a narrow strip of her garden.
Mr Justice Linden dismissed her appeal. “The difference between the two lines was, the judge permissibly found, immaterial,” he said. He noted that Judge Mitchell had considered the evidence and carried out a site visit. “The costs of the litigation were already very substantial,” Mr Justice Linden added. He also upheld the costs order, finding that the boundary was the central issue and Channon had won on that point. “It is clear that both sides pursued their respective positions robustly,” he said.
Judge brands dispute a 'tragedy'
Judge Mitchell criticised how far the neighbour dispute had escalated. “This is a wholly unfortunate dispute which, from any objective viewpoint, should plainly not have got to this point,” he said. He described the properties as occupying an “idyllic position” with “fabulous sea views”. But the row had taken its toll. “Clearly it has caused a significant amount of stress and upset, let alone cost,” he said.
The judge described Douglas and Channon as “strong characters with strong views, forthrightly expressed”. He added: “Each case of this sort is, in its own way, a tragedy.” Douglas now faces paying potentially more than £200,000 towards her neighbour's legal costs, on top of her own expenses.
