I won £200K in High Court battle over a hedge… but I’m still out of pocket: Ex-rally driver faces huge legal bill after neighbour boundary dispute dragged on for five years
Ron Channon, an 87-year-old former rally driver and insurance businessman, won a five-year boundary dispute with his neighbour, estate agency boss Sarah Douglas, over a hedge between their homes in Torquay. Although the court rejected Douglas’s challenge and ordered her to pay more than £200,000 towards his legal costs, Channon says the case has left him substantially out of pocket.
The dispute centred on whether the boundary followed the stems of a removed hedge, as Channon argued, or its southernmost leaves, as Douglas claimed. A judge ruled that a boundary based on the hedge’s outer edge would shift as it grew. Channon says his own legal fees exceeded £300,000 and he expects to be at least £100,000 down overall; Douglas’s house was valued at £700,000, while Channon bought his for £1.4 million.
- Ron Channon won the hedge boundary dispute.
- Sarah Douglas must pay more than £200,000 towards his costs.
- Channon says his legal fees leave him at least £100,000 out of pocket.
New here? Start with this
Property boundaries can be difficult to establish when an old feature such as a hedge is used as a marker. In this case, the neighbours disagreed over whether the boundary followed the hedge’s stems or the edge of its leaves.
Ron Channon, a former rally driver and businessman, argued for the line at the stems; his neighbour, estate agent Sarah Douglas, argued for the outer edge. The court rejected Douglas’s challenge, but legal costs in a long-running dispute can exceed the amount a court orders one side to pay, leaving the overall financial impact uncertain.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Channon’s case is that a boundary should be fixed by the hedge’s stems, rather than by its outermost leaves, which change as the hedge grows. A movable boundary could make ownership uncertain over time, and the court accepted that reasoning; after spending more than £300,000 on the dispute, he may still bear a substantial share of the cost despite winning.
The case against
Douglas’s position can be understood as treating the hedge’s southernmost edge as the practical boundary, reflecting the land it occupied and the line she believed separated the properties. Boundary disputes can turn on ambiguous features and records, so challenging an interpretation may be a reasonable attempt to establish where ownership lies, even though the court rejected her case and ordered her to contribute to Channon’s costs.