A businessman who went to war with his next-door neighbour over six square metres of lawn has landed an estimated legal bill of more than £150,000.

Martin Charalambous fell out with Dr Robert Welding, who argued the boundary between their mock Tudor homes in St Judes Walk, Charlton Kings should strictly follow Land Registry plans.

Last December, a Gloucester County Court judge ruled in Dr Welding's favour, saying the plans showed the boundary's true position and ordered Mr Charalambous and his partner, Julia Roberts, to foot the enormous legal costs of the dispute.

Despite each side having already run up costs of around £70,000, the case was back in the Court of Appeal yesterday as Mr Charalambous sought to overturn the county court ruling.

But, after a hearing at the London court, two senior judges upheld the previous ruling and ordered the Cheltenham couple pay the full costs of the case.

With already around £140,000 spent – and the costs of barristers and solicitors for the appeal hearing to be added – the couple are likely to be dealt a painful financial blow.

The total legal costs of the case will be many times more than the value of the disputed land.

The couple, who own the Vanilla restaurant, beauty salon and apartment in Cambray Place, argue the true boundary follows a row of shrubs, in line with the "historic" position agreed by previous owners.

The court heard that although the land had originally been open lawn, previous owners "agreed" to the division and lived "perfectly happily" for 18 years with that arrangement.

Lord Justice Stanley Burnton said another sad feature of the case was the relationship between the litigants had broken down amid "extreme ill-feeling", while the previous neighbours had lived in harmony, cutting each other's lawns when the other was on holiday.

To overturn the county court ruling, Mr Charalambous needed to show the trial judge's findings of fact were "perverse", "unsupported by evidence" or "ignored relevant other evidence", he continued.

But he said there had been evidence on which the judge could properly conclude the previous owners had not discussed and agreed a boundary line.

He said: "It seems to us that those findings were entirely open to the judge on the evidence. In my judgment, it has not been shown that the judge was not entitled to make the findings of fact made."

Lord Justice Ward said the behaviour of the previous owners, treating the plants as all but a boundary, did not undermine the county court ruling as it was "not sufficient to displace the fact there was no firm agreement".

After the hearing, Dr Welding declined to comment while Mr Charalambous left court before the judges finished delivering their ruling.