The Plymouth County Court had already ruled that the boundary ran along the outer edge of the hedge, but the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision to apply the de‑minimis principle and order Ms. Douglas to cover 70% of Mr. Channon’s costs.
Judge Mitchell examined survey reports, photographs, and a civil‑engineering survey that identified line A‑H‑B as the boundary. The hedge had been removed before the trial, making the exact position impossible to verify.
Ms. Douglas argued that her expert had demonstrated the hedge’s outer stem line, while Mr. Channon’s engineer had placed the line slightly inside. The Court of Appeal found the difference to be only a few millimetres and therefore legally insignificant.
The appeal also tackled broader claims: Ms. Douglas had sued for trespass, nuisance, and destabilising work, all of which were dismissed. Mr. Channon counter‑claimed over £200,000, but most of those claims failed.
In deciding the costs, the Court of Appeal noted that the trial judge had already factored in Mr. Channon’s unsuccessful counter‑claims. The order therefore remains unchanged, and Ms. Douglas must pay the £108,402 upfront, with the remaining balance to be settled later.
The ruling leaves the two neighbours with a contentious boundary and a hefty financial burden; the court will determine the final cost allocation next month.