Two millionaire couples are locked in an “absurd” £260,000 neighbour row over a 3ft bulge in a wonky basement wall.
Safina Haleema and Anthony O’Connor are suing their neighbours, claiming Amy McKeown and Matthew Dalton “encroached” over the boundary into their property in the exclusive celeb-studded London suburb while digging out a basement at their £1.5million home.
However, Ms McKeown, an award-winning mental health and wellbeing consultant for businesswomen, and her Kiwi partner Mr Dalton say their lives have been blighted by the legal battle.
They have been unable to sell their house due to their neighbours’ claims that the concrete wall of their basement extension was not straight and bulged out over the border between the two houses by up to 900mm.
The legal battle has been ongoing for the past six years, having already racked up £160,000 in legal costs, and has now reached Mayors and City County Court.
Ms Haleema and her partner are demanding £100,000 in compensation from their neighbours over the wonky wall they say intrudes into their own £1.5million home.
But their neighbours are battling on, calling the case against them “absurd” and insisting they signed an agreement with the couple next door before building commenced, allowing them to install a wall which straddles the border between their two properties.
The spat has developed against the backdrop of London’s leafy Primrose Hill, a highly coveted address favoured by many past and present celebrities such as Daniel Craig, Jamie Oliver and Harry Styles.
The milionaire neighbours have been battling through the courts for the past six years
|
GOOGLE STREET VIEW
The suburb is partly prized due to the panoramic views offered from Primrose Hill itself, which is a ten-minute walk from the two neighbouring households on King Henry’s Road caught up in the case.
Philip Jones, barrister for Mr O’Connor and Ms Haleema, said the conflict stemmed from basement works carried out ten years ago, which ended in a concrete “overspill” causing their neighbours’ wall to bulge out beneath their home.
He said: “At its heart and despite the complexity which Mr Dalton and Ms McKeown have sought to introduce, this is a relatively straightforward case.
“Did Mr Dalton and Ms McKeown through their contractors…in the course of constructing the basement…cause or permit concrete to be poured so as to protrude up to 900mm onto the claimants’ land and into what is now the claimants’ basement?”
The properties are located in the leafy neighbourhood of Primrose Hill
|
GETTY
However, Mr Dalton and Ms McKeown deny their wall “trespasses” over the boundary line into their neighbours’ basement and are disputing their neighbours’ bid for a court ruling on the precise location of the boundary line, as well as their claim for £100,000 in compensation.
Their barrister, Hugh Rowan said: “My clients have been stuck in limbo for the past six years.
“They can’t sell their house or move away because to do so would reveal the existence of this dispute.”
Mr Rowan labelled the court claim against his clients “absurd” and argued that any compensation award would be unfair “double recovery” for Mr O’Connell and Ms Haleema, since they previously received an insurance payout for the concrete overspill in 2023.
He also pointed to a previous party wall agreement between the disputing neighbours, which he said made clear that his clients’ new basement wall was permitted to “straddle the boundary”.
The case put by Mr O’Connor and Ms Haleema was “riddled with inconsistencies”, Mr Rowan argued, drawing attention to their original claim, which stated their neighbours’ new wall should have stopped at the boundary line.
Mr Rowan said this however contradicted the clear terms of the 2016 party wall agreement.
He said: “Mr Dalton and Ms McKeown have repeatedly pointed out the absurdity of this position; not only did the 2016 award expressly allow for a wall that straddled the boundary line, but the claimants’ own expert accepted that the 2016 award allowed a ‘retaining wall astride the party wall boundary’.”
Mr O’Connor and Ms Haleema later revised their claim to focus their attack on the alleged bulge in the wall, saying it needed to be “straight instead of displaying an overspill of concrete”, but the defence barrister said they have yet to clarify “where the alleged overspill begins”.
Mr Rowan told Judge Nicholas Barfitt: “Over the last half a decade, my clients have repeatedly and exhaustively sought to understand the claimants’ case, however what is now finally clear is that the claimants do not know what their own case is.
“Their pleadings are riddled with inconsistencies, contradictions, and speculations.
“Even after five years, Mr O’Connor and Ms Haleema have still not advanced a clear case as to either how much overspill is alleged or what the cost of remedy would be.”
Mr O’Connor and Ms Haleema say they discovered the subterranean concrete overspill after commissioning their own basement dig in 2020, although they later ditched the project.
Their barrister, Mr Jones, disputed any lack of clarity in his clients’ case and argued “whatever the extent of the permitted works, the defendants hugely exceeded it and encroached significantly onto the claimants’ land causing damage to the claimants”.
The case reached court for a pre-trial showdown between the neighbours as Ms McKeown and Mr Dalton urged Judge Parfitt to “strike out” the allegedly “hopeless” claim on the basis of lack of clarity and inconsistency.
After several hours of argument, the judge declined to dismiss the case, ruling he would allow Mr O’Connor and Ms Haleema a final chance to prepare definitive “particulars of claim” mapping out the detail of their legal claim.
The case is set to return to court at a later date.
