Parish councillor loses four-year legal fight after neighbour tore out dog-proof fence around their £1.2m country home

By ROBERT FOLKER, NEWS REPORTER Published: 11:17, 15 July 2026 | Updated: 11:19, 15 July 2026 A parish councillor has lost a four-year court fight after his neighbour started tearing out the 'dog-proof fence' around his £1.2m country home.   David Todd, 69, and partner Caroline Hodge, 65, say when they bought their East Sussex home in 2018, they were assured that it was enclosed by a dog-proof fence to keep their two Labradors safe and secure. But amid a row over where the boundary of their property lay, a legal battle erupted when new neighbour Richard Marsh 'unilaterally decided to take down' the fence, London's High Court heard.   Mr Marsh, 44, and his wife Rebecca, 40, bought a neighbouring parcel of ancient woodland and meadow in May 2021.  They say this included half an acre of land inside the fence, which the neighbouring older couple claim is part of their garden. Mr and Mrs Marsh say the fence was in the wrong place and, as well as enclosing part of the land they purchased, caused the meadow - bought through a company owned by him - to be effectively 'landlocked' and inaccessible. The neighbours went to court last year when Mr and Mrs Marsh won a ruling that the fence does not mark the true boundary. It was ruled that the disputed half-acre and a vital access strip to their land belong to Mr and Mrs Marsh in accordance with the paper boundary. Dog lovers David Todd, 69, and partner Caroline Hodge, 65, bought their 'substantial' house Wyland Wood, set in 2.7 acres of East Sussex countryside, in 2018 Richard Marsh, 44, and wife Rebecca, 40, bought a neighbouring parcel of ancient woodland and meadow in May 2021 - the two couples have since been engaged in a court battle But Mr Todd, who sits on Salehurst and Robertsbridge Parish Council, and his partner challenged that ruling at the High Court.  They claimed they should be handed the land because a 'reasonable purchaser' would have thought the fence marked the boundary when buying it.  The couple also said they made a 'boundary agreement' over email with the previous owner of the Marshes' land, confirming everything inside the fence was theirs. But Mr Justice Michael Green has now thrown out the parish councillor's case, saying that there was no agreement with the previous owner but merely a simple conversation about fence repairs. The court heard that dog-loving Mr Todd and partner Ms Hodge bought their 'handsome' 19th-century four-bed three-bath detached stone-built country house, Wyland Wood, near Robertsbridge, East Sussex, for around £1.2m in 2018. The property features a drawing room, dog and boot room, and is set in 2.7 acres of gardens and woodland, with its own 'excellent treehouse'. During the trial last year, the couple told Hastings County Court in East Sussex they were assured by estate agents that the property was surrounded by a 'dog-proof fence' to keep safe and secure their pets, described by Ms Hodge as 'sweethearts'. The feud between the neighbours started as Mr and Mrs Marsh insisted they had bought about half an acre of land inside the dog-proof fence and in what Mr Todd and Ms Hodge believed was their garden. A bitter court war erupted when Mr Marsh 'unilaterally decided to take down' the fence, planning to replace it with another on the line of the boundary on the paper title, Mr Todd's barrister, Evan Price, said. It led to Mr Todd and Ms Hodge obtaining a court injunction, requiring Mr Marsh to stop removing the fence, not to erect a new one and to replace the parts already removed. At the county court, Mr Todd told the judge they believed that everything 'in the fence was what we were buying,' adding that the property was described in the estate agent's particulars as 'dog-proof' by virtue of the fence. The fence should be regarded as the boundary as it was the most obvious physical feature on the ground, he said, claiming that in any case, the previous owner had agreed via email that the boundary lay there during discussions about sharing costs to repair the fence. But Judge Caroline Parker last year ruled in favour of Mr and Mrs Marsh, saying that part of the dog-proof fence lay 6m to 8m outside the line on the registered title plans of their land, which is marked by a tree line and the remnants of an old wire fence. The judge said: 'The fact that the estate agent particulars state that the garden is "dog-proof" is not sufficient to establish that a reasonable purchaser would have understood that to mean that the fence marked the boundary.' It was ruled that Mr and Mrs Marsh are allowed to fence off the half-acre of land, with the couple also awarded £3,174 in damages. Pictured is Mr Todd and Ms Hodge's Wyland Wood home in Robertsbridge, East Sussex Mr Price, appealing the ruling in the High Court on behalf of the councillor and his partner, asked the judge: 'If you can't rely on what's there, what can you rely on?'. He argued that, even if the boundary on paper didn't follow the fence line, Mr Todd and his partner had secured a binding 'boundary agreement' from the previous owner, Stephen Baldwin, during discussions and in emails relating to repairs to the fence after they moved in. 'A chat over a garden fence can amount to a boundary agreement,' he told the judge. But dismissing the appeal last week, the court heard: 'After considering the email exchanges between Mr Todd and Mr Baldwin, and their oral evidence, the judge held that there was no boundary agreement because the subject of the discussions was the repair of the dog and deer proof fence, not where the boundary lay. 'Furthermore, if it was a boundary agreement it would have resulted in the transfer of a significant portion of land to the appellants, which was not trivial. 'The judge's conclusion that in the circumstances there was no boundary agreement is rational and there is no real basis for overturning this finding of fact.'