A Devon estate agent and a former rally driver clash over a removed hedge, ending in a court ruling that forces the broker to pay a six‑figure legal bill.
In the seaside town of Torquay, two high-value homes perched on a hill have become the setting for a protracted legal clash. Sarah Douglas a 57-year-old estate-agency director, bought a £700,000 property in 2017 that offers sweeping sea views.
A year later, a dispute erupted when the hedge that separated her garden from the adjoining plot was ripped out by the then-owner.
In June 2021, the vacant neighbour’s house was purchased by Ronald Channon an 87-year-old former rally driver turned insurance executive, for £1.4 million.
Shortly after moving in, Channon erected a new fence along the line where the hedge once stood, a line Douglas insists lay on her own land.
The neighbours and their properties
Douglas’s residence occupies the higher, northern end of Mead Road, granting it a panoramic outlook over the coast.
The property she describes as having “fabulous views” also rests on a stepped-back bank that, in her view, was stabilised by the original hedge. Channon’s newly acquired house sits lower on the same hill, directly opposite Douglas, and his fence now marks the contested line.
Both parties have strong personalities, a fact highlighted by the presiding judge. Douglas claims the boundary should follow the “southernmost leaf” of the former hedge, effectively extending her garden southward. Channon argues the line should run along the stems of the original hedge, meaning the fence is entirely on his parcel.
Court proceedings and rulings
The dispute reached Plymouth County Court in 2025, where Judge Paul Mitchell described the case as a “tragedy” and “wholly unfortunate”. He noted that the properties occupied “what might be called an idyllic position” with extensive sea views, yet the conflict had eroded the owners’ enjoyment of their homes.
After hearing evidence, Judge Mitchell ruled that using the outer edge of the hedge as a boundary would be untenable, as the line would shift with the hedge’s growth. Instead, he determined the boundary follows the outer edge of the hedge’s stems, a fixed point that placed Channon’s fence on his land. Douglas therefore lost both the boundary claim and her request for damages related to the retaining bank.
High Court appeal and financial repercussions
Unhappy with the cost order, Douglas appealed to the High Court. Justice Linden upheld the county court’s decision, stating that the millimetre difference between the two proposed lines was “de minimis” and within the judge’s discretion. He affirmed that the fence was correctly situated on Channon’s property.
Regarding costs, Justice Linden confirmed that Douglas must cover 70 % of Channon’s legal expenses, an amount estimated at over £300,000. An initial payment of £108,402 was ordered, with a full assessment to follow. The total outlay for Douglas now exceeds £200,000, adding to the personal legal fees she incurred.
The case illustrates how a seemingly minor landscaping issue—whether a hedge or a fence—can evolve into a costly property boundary dispute when parties hold entrenched views. Both neighbours, described by the judge as “strong characters”, have seen the enjoyment of their “idyllic” seaside homes severely diminished by the litigation.
