A parish councillor has lost a four-year legal fight concerning a fence around his country home, with a high court judge dismissing his appeal. David Todd, 69, and his partner Caroline Hodge, 65, contended that a fence around their £1.2 million property in East Sussex marked the true boundary. They stated that upon purchasing the home in 2018, they were assured it was enclosed by a dog-proof fence to secure their two Labradors.
Boundary Dispute Erupts
The legal battle began when their new neighbors, Richard Marsh, 44, and his wife Rebecca, 40, purchased a neighboring parcel of land in May 2021. The Marshes asserted that approximately half an acre of land within the existing fence belonged to them, claiming it was part of their newly acquired property. They also argued that the fence was incorrectly positioned, enclosing part of their land and rendering their meadow inaccessible, or "landlocked."
In 2023, the Marshes won a ruling at Hastings County Court that the fence did not represent the correct boundary according to the registered title plans. The court determined that the disputed half-acre and an access strip belonged to the Marshes based on the paper title. The judge noted that the description of the garden as "dog-proof" in estate agent particulars was insufficient to establish that a reasonable purchaser would have believed the fence marked the boundary. The Marshes were awarded £3,174 in damages.
Appeal to High Court
Mr. Todd and Ms. Hodge appealed this decision to the High Court. They argued that a reasonable purchaser would have assumed the fence indicated the property line. Furthermore, they claimed to have established a binding "boundary agreement" with the previous owner of the Marshes' land via email, confirming all land within the fence was theirs. Todd's barrister suggested that even a conversation about fence repairs could constitute a boundary agreement.
Appeal Dismissed
Mr. Justice Michael Green dismissed the appeal, ruling that the evidence did not support the existence of a boundary agreement. The court found that discussions with the previous owner were about fence repairs, not the location of the boundary. The judge concluded that the lower court's finding of no boundary agreement was rational and upheld the ruling, confirming that the land and access strip belong to the Marshes. The Marshes had previously taken down the existing fence, intending to replace it with one along the established paper boundary. Mr. Todd and Ms. Hodge had obtained an injunction to prevent this before the case was fully resolved.