A legal dispute over the boundary of a country property in East Sussex has concluded after four years of court proceedings, with a parish councillor losing his claim to land he argued was part of his garden. David Todd, 69, and his partner Caroline Hodge, 65, purchased their 19th-century home near Robertsbridge in 2018 for £1.2 million, believing the property was enclosed by a dog-proof fence securing their two labradors. However, the location of the boundary became contentious when their neighbours, Richard and Rebecca Marsh, purchased adjacent woodland and meadow in 2021 and replaced the existing fence with one set in a different position.

The Todd couple contended that the Marshes’ repositioning of the fence resulted in the loss of approximately half an acre of what they considered their garden. They argued that the original fence had been understood as marking the property's boundary, a belief they said any reasonable purchaser would have shared. Additionally, they claimed a “boundary agreement” had been established with the previous owner of the Marshes’ land.

The Marshes countered by citing the official land registry documents, asserting that the existing fence at the time was not aligned with the paper boundaries, and that the land in dispute—including a critical access strip—belonged to them. The case was initially heard in Hastings County Court, which ruled in favour of the Marshes, determining that the registered title plan, not the original fence, defined the true boundary. This decision was upheld by the High Court in London.

Justice Michael Green dismissed the Todds’ appeal, stating there was no evidence of a binding boundary agreement with the previous landowner. The judge explained that prior discussions had focused only on sharing the cost of fence repairs and that the previous owner had not explicitly addressed the boundary’s location. The ruling confirmed that the Marshes were entitled to enclose the disputed half-acre and awarded them £3,174 in damages.

David Todd serves as chairman of Salehurst & Robertsbridge Parish Council. Despite the loss, the case highlights challenges that can arise when physical markers on properties do not align with official land registry documentation. The dispute underscores the importance of land registry boundaries over physical enclosures in property law, especially in rural areas with historic land use patterns.