A parish councillor and his partner are embroiled in a protracted four-year High Court battle after their neighbour's workmen began dismantling the 'dog-proof fence' surrounding their £1.2m East Sussex country home. The dispute centres on a contentious boundary line.
Background of the Dispute
David Todd, 69, and Caroline Hodge, 65, purchased Wyland Wood, a 2.7-acre property, in 2018. They claim they were assured by estate agents that the property was enclosed by a secure fence, vital for the safety of their two Labradors. However, a legal confrontation erupted when new neighbours Richard Marsh, 44, and Rebecca Marsh, 40, acquired an adjacent parcel of ancient woodland and meadow in May 2021.
London's High Court heard that Mr Marsh 'unilaterally decided to take down' the existing fence, replacing it in a new position that encroaches upon what Mr Todd and Ms Hodge maintain is part of their garden. The Marshes, conversely, contend that the original fence was incorrectly placed. They argue it not only encloses land they purchased but also renders their meadow – acquired through a company owned by Mr Marsh – effectively 'landlocked' and inaccessible.
Previous Ruling and Appeal
The neighbours went to court in 2025, where Mr and Mrs Marsh won a ruling that the fence does not mark the true boundary and that the disputed half acre and a vital access strip belongs to them in accordance with the paper boundary on Land Registry records. But Mr Todd, who sits on Salehurst Parish Council, and his partner are now challenging that ruling at the High Court, claiming that they should be handed the land because a 'reasonable purchaser' would have thought the fence marked the boundary when buying it.
They also claim that in any case they made a 'boundary agreement' over email with the previous owner of the Marshes' land, confirming everything inside the fence was theirs. But Mr and Mrs Marsh are insisting that the fence has to move because it is 'utterly improbable' that the previous owner would have made an agreement landlocking his own land.
Property Details
The court heard that Mr Todd and Ms Hodge bought their 'handsome' 19th century four-bed three-bath country house, Wyland Wood, near Robertsbridge, East Sussex, for around £1.2m in 2018. The property features a drawing room, dog and boot room, and is set in 2.7 acres of gardens and woodland, with its own 'excellent treehouse'. During the trial in 2025, the couple told Hastings County Court that they were assured by estate agents that the property was surrounded by a 'dog-proof fence' to keep their canine companions, which Ms Hodge described as 'sweethearts', safe and secure.
But they later found themselves in a dispute with Robertsbridge neighbours, business consultant Richard Marsh and his wife Rebecca, after the pair bought an ancient woodland next to the councillor's home and an adjoining meadow through one of Mr Marsh's companies. Mr and Mrs Marsh insisted they had bought about half an acre of land inside the dog-proof fence and in what Mr Todd and Ms Hodge believed was their garden.
Legal Arguments
A bitter court war erupted when Mr Marsh 'unilaterally decided to take down' the fence, planning to replace it with another on the line of the boundary on the paper title, Mr Todd's barrister, Evan Price, told the High Court. It led to Mr Todd and Ms Hodge obtaining a court injunction, requiring Mr Marsh to stop removing the fence, not to erect a new one and to replace the parts already removed.
At the county court, Mr Todd told the judge they believed that everything 'in the fence was what we were buying', adding that the property was described in the estate agent's particulars as 'dog-proof' by virtue of the fence. The fence should be regarded as the boundary as it was the most obvious physical feature on the ground, he said, claiming that in any case the previous owner had agreed via email that the boundary lay there during discussions about sharing costs to repair the fence.
Judge's Decision
But Judge Caroline Parker in 2025 ruled in favour of Mr and Mrs Marsh, saying that part of the dog-proof fence lay 6m to 8m outside the paper boundary of their land, which is marked by a tree line and the remnants of an old wire fence. 'The claimants wanted a dog-proof garden. The sales particulars said that was the case. They were so shown round the garden by an estate agent on two visits in October 2012', said the judge, adding that the couple 'believed that the fence marked the boundary, it is more obvious as such than the line of trees.'
Rejecting their case, she said that the woodland and meadow had been offered separately to the councillor and his partner when they bought the house, but they had declined to buy them. 'The fact that the estate agent particulars state that the garden is 'dog-proof' is not sufficient to establish that a reasonable purchaser would have understood that to mean that the fence marked the boundary,' she added, dismissing their claim and declaring that Mr and Mrs Marsh are allowed to fence off the half acre of land, slicing it from the councillor's garden. She also awarded Mr and Mrs Marsh £3,174 in damages.
Appeal Hearing
Mr Price, appealing the ruling this week in the High Court on behalf of the councillor and his partner, said they had thought they were buying a 'dog-proof property' with an easy to see boundary. 'If you can't rely on what's there, what can you rely on?' he asked the judge. He argued that, even if the boundary on paper didn't follow the fence line, Mr Todd and his partner had secured a binding 'boundary agreement' from the previous owner, Stephen Baldwin, during discussions and in emails relating to repairs to the fence after they moved in.
'A chat over a garden fence can amount to a boundary agreement,' he told High Court judge Mr Justice Michael Green. 'Oral agreements are becoming more important. For there to have been a boundary agreement, there doesn't need to have been a dispute about the boundary.' But Philip Sissons, for Mr and Mrs Marsh, said the councillor and his partner had known the land next to them was not included in the sale of their house and could have checked the paper boundaries. They had been offered the other land when they bought Wyland Wood, but declined, he said.
He also refuted their alternative argument based on a 'boundary agreement' with Mr Baldwin. 'The appellants asserted that in August 2019 an agreement had been reached between Mr Todd and Mr Baldwin to the effect that the dog and deer proof fence marked the end of Wyland Wood,' he said. 'This argument was based on a handful of emails in which Mr Todd pointed out that the fence which he described as a boundary fence was in need of repair and Mr Baldwin agreed to contribute to those repairs. In her judgment, the judge accepted Mr Baldwin's 'straightforward and honest' evidence that he had not agreed the deer and dog proof fence was the boundary. The judge was entirely correct to conclude no boundary agreement was made.'
The meadow would have been 'landlocked and inaccessible' when sold to Mr and Mrs Marsh in 2021 if the fence was truly the boundary, he said, adding that it is 'utterly improbable' that the previous owner would have entered into an agreement to landlock his own meadow. The judge commented that cutting off access to the meadow land is something 'no one in their right mind would have done', adding, 'now four years later we are still in court'. He reserved his judgment in the case at the end of a two-day hearing to be given at a later date.
