An estate agent has been left with a £200,000 court bill after losing a court case with her millionaire ex-rally driver neighbour over a hedge between their seaside homes.

Estate agency boss Sarah Douglas, 57, moved into her £700,000 hilltop house in 2017, which was described as having far-reaching 'fabulous views' across the coastline of Devon resort town Torquay.

But the following year she became embroiled in 'an unfortunate boundary dispute' with a next door neighbour after he ripped out a hedge between their properties.

That neighbour later moved out, but the row continued after Ronald Channon, 87 – a former rally driver turned insurance boss – paid £1.4million for a house next door to Ms Douglas in June 2021.

He promptly erected a new fence on what she insisted was 'her land', a court heard.

The dispute between the pair, both labelled 'strong characters' by a judge, went to court last year.

The case dealt with a disagreement over where the boundary lay between their two high-end properties.

Mr Channon claimed it should run along the line of the stems of the original torn out hedge, meaning the fence would stand on his land.

Ms Douglas said it should follow the line of the hedge's 'southernmost leaf' – meaning it would have been wrongly built in her garden.

She lost the case after a judge ruled a boundary following the outside of the hedge would make no sense because it would change according to how bushy the hedge was at any given time.

Now Ms Douglas has also lost a High Court challenge to an order that she pay most of the legal costs, having to pay more than £200,000 of her neighbour's lawyers' fees on top of her own.

Judge Paul Mitchell, at Plymouth County Court, branded the row a 'tragedy', adding: 'This is a wholly unfortunate dispute which, from any objective viewpoint, should plainly not have got to this point.

'Clearly it has caused a significant amount of stress and upset, let alone cost.

'The properties which the parties respectively occupy are in what might be called an idyllic position, commanding fabulous sea views and should be enjoyed by each party to the maximum.

'This dispute has substantially impacted upon the pleasure that each has been able to derive from living in what otherwise should have been something bordering idyllic circumstances.'

As a driver and co-driver, Mr Channon achieved rallying success nationally and internationally.

He finished 13th in the 16,000-mile London to Mexico World Cup Rally in 1970 – whose participants also included football legend Jimmy Greaves, coming sixth – and was still racing well into his 70s.

Ms Douglas, meanwhile, is one of the bosses of a successful south Devon estate agency.

Judge Mitchell said that the two houses sit on the same road in Torquay, near the top of a hill affording both far-reaching sea views from their rear gardens, with Ms Douglas's property to the north of and higher up than the neighbouring site.

In 2018, her then neighbour removed a hedge between the two properties which Ms Douglas insisted belonged to her. She said it had acted to stabilise and retain the stepped-up bank between the two houses.

In 2022, shortly after Mr Channon moved in, he built a new fence along the strip formerly occupied by the hedge but on his side of where the stems had been planted.

The judge said: 'It is claimed that the removal of the hedge was a trespass; further or alternatively, that the removal constituted a nuisance which has led to instability and it is alleged that Mr Channon has adopted the nuisance and/or the trespass of his predecessor in title.'

He went on to say the row had then snowballed, with Ms Douglas suing for a declaration that she owned the entire strip formerly occupied by the hedge, up to its 'southernmost leaf'.

She also requested an injunction and damages for the retaining bank being weakened.

Mr Channon had gone on to counter-sue, claiming £200,000 damages for diminution in the value of his house plus 'harassment and nuisance' over incidents including Ms Douglas's dogs getting into his garden and weeds encroaching on his property.

His counter-claim was ultimately dismissed but the judge found in his favour over the boundary line.

The ruling said the fence Mr Channon built was on his own land despite the southern part of the hedge having formerly occupied that space.

Judge Mitchell said: 'It seems to me where the boundary separating two properties is demarcated by a hedge which belongs within the curtilage of one of the properties, the boundary will run along the outer edge of the growers or trunks or stems.

'One can easily surmise that the growers were not the width of a tree trunk or anything of that sort. They were relatively thin stems.

'The boundary is then more or less a fixed point. The practical effect of that on the ground is that the boundary line is the [southerly] outer line of the growers of the hedge.

'This is a wholly unfortunate dispute, which, from any objective viewpoint, should plainly not have got to this point, but, given that it has, clearly it has caused a significant amount of stress and upset, let alone cost.'

He described both parties as 'plainly a strong character with strong views, forthrightly expressed', adding: 'Each case of this sort is, in its own way, a tragedy.'

He went on to order that the estate agent should pay 70 per cent of her neighbour's legal bill for the fight, estimated at more than £300,000, with £108,402 up front pending an assessment of the full amount.

Unhappy with that ruling, Ms Douglas went on to challenge it in the High Court.

She argued that she should not have to pay any of her neighbour's costs, having succeeded in beating his £200,000 counter-claim, and also said the county court judge had blundered by agreeing that the boundary line should now run through the middle of where the stems of the hedge had stood.

Judge Mitchell had found that the exact line of the boundary would be along the southern edge of the hedge's stems, but had gone on to approve the boundary line being drawn through the middle of where the stems were.

That had been argued for by Mr Channon's expert surveyor, saying that the difference was a matter of 'millimetres' and was so small as to not matter.

On appeal, Ms Douglas objected to this, claiming the judge had wrongly robbed her of a wafer-thin strip of her garden with his decision.

But Mr Justice Linden, in a ruling given last week, said the county court judge had been within his rights to say that the tiny difference didn't matter.

He said: 'The question whether the difference between the two lines was de minimis was one of fact for the judge and his finding was based on the evidence.

'He read, saw and heard all of the evidence and, indeed, undertook a site visit, and his finding was plainly open to him.

'He found that the growers were relatively thin stems and that the relevant section would therefore be "marginally out by the width, or perhaps half the width, of the growers", ie. a matter of mere millimetres.

'The difference between the two lines was, the judge permissibly found, immaterial.

'The judge was also fully entitled to take the view that it certainly would not justify the continuation of the litigation by requiring the experts to plot what the southern line of growers would have been if the hedge had not been removed in 2018, with the possibility of a further hearing if they were unable to agree.

'The costs of the litigation were already very substantial.'

Going on to rule against her on the costs issue, Mr Justice Linden said that the main issue had been the position of the boundary and Mr Channon had won that argument.

He added: 'It is clear that both sides pursued their respective positions robustly. The judge also expressly took into account that there had been intransigence on both sides.'

Ms Douglas has been ordered to pay £108,402 on account of her neighbour's costs, ahead of an assessment of her full bill at a later date.