Sarah Douglas v Ronald Channon

An appellate court should interfere with factual findings only for an identifiable error or where the decision cannot reasonably be explained or justified. It should interfere with a costs discretion only for a recognised error, including a decision outside the generous range of reasonable disagreement. The de minimis principle applies to boundary disputes and trespass claims: a factually trivial difference between a legally indicated boundary and the line declared may be disregarded. Where these standards are met, the trial judge’s boundary and costs decisions stand.

This was an appeal from orders made after a trial in the Plymouth County Court between the owners of neighbouring properties at 41 and 43 Mead Road, Torquay. The trial judge declared the boundary to be line A-H-B, dismissed the remaining claims and counterclaim, and ordered Ms Douglas to pay 70% of Mr Channon’s costs. Permission to appeal was granted on two grounds: whether the boundary finding was wrong as a matter of fact, and whether the costs order was wrong. The central questions were whether the judge could treat the difference between the declared line and the line indicated by the hedge-boundary authorities as de minimis, and whether the costs decision fell outside the proper exercise of discretion.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court reviewed the two permitted grounds under the appellate standards applicable to factual findings and discretionary decisions.

2. On the boundary ground, there was no challenge to the judge’s interpretation of Collis v Amphlett [1920] AC 271 and Avon Estates Limited v Evans [2013] EWHC 1635. The de minimis principle applies to boundary disputes and trespass claims. Whether the difference between the legally indicated line and the line plotted by the defendant’s expert was trivial was a question of fact. On the evidence, including the photographs and the judge’s site visit, he was entitled to find that the difference amounted to only millimetres. The possibility that the line affected a claim in trespass or the extent of land was also de minimis. No further expert plotting or hearing was required, and the judge’s decision was plainly open to him (paras [18], [24]–[28]).

   The factual-review standard in Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41 was not met: the finding was supported by the evidence and could reasonably be explained. The alleged failure to direct further expert work was not a serious procedural irregularity and did not make the decision unjust under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (paras [17(i)], [25], [28]).

3. On costs, the trial judge was best placed to assess which issues mattered most, where costs were incurred and how the parties conducted the litigation. The judge was entitled to treat Mr Channon as successful because he prevailed on the stand-out boundary issue and Ms Douglas’s principal claims, including the stabilisation claim, failed. The judge also accounted for the failed counterclaim claims, the costs they caused, the evolution of Mr Channon’s case and the parties’ mutual intransigence, including by reducing the costs payable by 30%. The appellant did not show a recognised error or a decision outside the generous ambit of discretion. Ground 4 was dismissed (paras [34]–[43]).

• High Court (King’s Bench Division): The appeal was dismissed on Grounds 1 and 4: [2026] EWHC 2475 (KB) .
• Plymouth County Court: His Honour Judge Mitchell declared line A-H-B to be the boundary on 26 August 2025, dismissed the remaining claim and counterclaim, and ordered Ms Douglas to pay 70% of Mr Channon’s costs on 5 September 2025.