Couple bought a £1.2 million home with a dog-proof fence; years later, neighbours claimed half an acre of their garden | World News
David Todd and Caroline Hodge bought their £1.2 million home in East Sussex with a countryside setting and a secure fence that was important because they owned two Labradors. Years later, however, that same fence became the centre of a dispute with their new neighbours. The disagreement focused on about half an acre of land that Todd and Hodge believed was part of their garden. Their neighbours argued that the land belonged to them, based on the legal boundary recorded for the property.
The £1.2 million home and its disputed dog-proof fence
According to The Independent, David Todd, 69, and Caroline Hodge, 65, bought Wyland Wood near Robertsbridge, East Sussex, for around £1.2 million in 2018. This 19th-century detached stone house has four bedrooms and three bathrooms and sits within 2.7 acres of gardens and woodland. It also has a drawing room, a dog and boot room and a treehouse.The couple had particular reason to value the fencing around the property. The Independent reported that estate agents had assured the couple that the garden was enclosed by a dog-proof fence, something they considered important because they owned two Labradors. Hodge described the dogs as their sweethearts during the earlier court proceedings.At the time they bought the property, the fence was already in place and appeared to provide a clear physical edge around the garden. The couple later argued that they reasonably believed everything inside it was part of the property they were purchasing.The situation changed after Richard Marsh, 44, and his wife Rebecca, 40, bought neighbouring ancient woodland and an adjoining meadow in May 2021, as reported by The Independent.
Wyland Wood House. Image Credit: Champion News
What changed after the Marshes bought the neighbouring land
The disagreement began when the Marshes determined that the existing fence did not match the boundary shown in the Land Registry records. They maintained that about half an acre inside the fence actually belonged to them, along with an important strip providing access to their land.The Independent reported that Marsh then began removing sections of the existing fence and intended to put up a new one along the boundary shown on the property documents. Todd and Hodge objected, saying this would take part of what they understood to be their garden.The couple obtained a court injunction requiring Marsh to stop removing the fence, preventing him from putting up a replacement and requiring sections that had already been removed to be restored.The disagreement eventually reached court, where the question was not simply where the visible fence stood, but which line legally represented the boundary between the two properties.
Richard and Rebecca Marsh outside court. Image Credit: Champion News
How did the courts determine where the boundary lay
At the 2025 county court hearing, Judge Caroline Parker ruled in favour of the Marshes. According to The Independent, she found that sections of the dog-proof fence stood between 6 and 8 metres outside the paper boundary of the land.That boundary was identified by a tree line and remnants of an older wire fence. The judge accepted that Todd and Hodge believed the existing fence marked the edge of their garden and noted that it was more obvious on the ground than the tree line.However, the court decided that describing the garden as dog-proof in the estate agent’s particulars was not enough to establish that the fence represented the legal boundary.The judge also ruled that the disputed half acre could be fenced off by the Marshes. They were awarded £3,174 in damages. The ruling meant that the couple lost a sizable section of the garden they had believed came with Wyland Wood.
The couple challenged the original ruling based on the previous owner
Todd and Hodge appealed the decision, arguing that a reasonable purchaser would have understood the visible fence to mark the property’s boundary.They also relied on a separate argument involving the previous owner of the Marshes’ land, Stephen Baldwin. The couple said emails exchanged with Baldwin while discussing repairs to the fence, amounted to a boundary agreement. Their position was that the correspondence showed the land inside the fence belonged to Wyland Wood.According to The Independent, Todd’s barrister argued that a boundary agreement could arise even without a formal dispute about the boundary. The couple’s case was that the existing fence had been treated as the boundary during discussions about repairing it.The Marshes rejected that interpretation. Their barrister argued that the emails were about sharing repair costs rather than agreeing where the property boundary stood.
What did the High Court decide about the half acre
In July 2026, the High Court dismissed Todd and Hodge’s appeal, according to The Independent. Mr Justice Michael Green upheld the earlier decision that the legal boundary was the one shown on the registered title plans and historical property documents, rather than the dog-proof fence.The court noted that the fence ran parallel to the paper boundary but stood between 6.37 metres and 11.37 metres on the Marshes’ side of it.The judge also rejected the claim that the emails with Baldwin created a boundary agreement. The discussions had concerned repairs to the fence, rather than its precise legal position. The court found that Baldwin had not consciously considered the boundary when agreeing to share repair costs.As a result, the long-running dispute ended with the paper boundary remaining in place. The fence that had helped Todd and Hodge feel their dogs and garden were secure could not be treated as the legal dividing line between the properties.
Source link
