Background
Sarah Douglas owns 43 Mead Road in Torquay, and Ronald Channon owns neighbouring 41 Mead Road. Their litigation concerned the precise boundary between the properties, alleged trespass and land destabilisation, nuisance, harassment, and other claims and counterclaims. After trial, the Plymouth County Court declared that the boundary followed line A-H-B on the experts’ plan and dismissed all other claims and counterclaims.
The trial judge found that the historic hedge between points H and B belonged to number 43 and that the legal boundary ran along the outer edge of the hedge’s growers, facing number 41. Although Mr Channon’s expert had plotted a line through the middle of the hedge, the judge found the difference to be only millimetres and therefore de minimis. The judge also ordered Ms Douglas to pay 70% of Mr Channon’s costs, including £108,402 on account, because Mr Channon prevailed on the principal boundary issue and Ms Douglas’s claim failed, while allowing a 30% reduction to reflect the failed counterclaim.
Ms Douglas received permission to appeal on two grounds. She argued that the court should have required the experts to plot the exact outer edge of the former hedge rather than adopting Mr Channon’s expert’s line, and that she should not have been ordered to pay any of Mr Channon’s costs.
The Court’s Holding
Mr Justice Linden dismissed the appeal. The trial judge was entitled to find as a matter of fact that the difference between the plotted line and the outer edge of the hedge growers was merely millimetres and legally immaterial under the de minimis principle. The evidence, including photographs and a site visit, supported that finding, and no further expert exercise or hearing was required.
The High Court also upheld the costs order. The trial judge was entitled to regard Mr Channon as the overall successful party because he prevailed on the boundary dispute—the standout issue—and because Ms Douglas’s claim, including her stabilisation claim, failed entirely. The judge had expressly considered the failure and cost of Mr Channon’s counterclaim and reflected those matters in the 30% reduction.
Because the boundary finding was open to the trial judge and the costs decision fell within his discretion under CPR 44.2, neither challenged order warranted appellate interference.
Key Takeaways
- A boundary line may be adopted despite a millimetric discrepancy where the trial court permissibly finds the difference de minimis.
- An appellate court will not disturb a fact-sensitive boundary determination merely because another precise line could have been plotted.
- For costs purposes, the party prevailing on the litigation’s principal and most costly issue may be treated as the overall successful party even when its counterclaim largely fails.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the courts’ reluctance to prolong disproportionate boundary litigation over immaterial differences. Where the evidence supports a finding that competing lines differ only by millimetres, the de minimis principle may defeat related arguments about trespass or loss of land.
It also confirms the breadth of a trial judge’s costs discretion in mixed-result litigation. Appellate intervention is unlikely where the judge identifies the dominant issues, considers each side’s successes and failures, and makes a reasoned percentage adjustment.