Millionaire neighbours battle over bulging basement wall in Primrose Hill London with legal costs spiralling to £260,000

A legal battle between two wealthy couples in the heart of Primrose Hill has escalated into a £260,000 dispute over a bulging basement wall.

What started as a minor structural quibble has ballooned into a six-year saga, leaving both sides frustrated and a prime London property locked in limbo.

The Dispute That Started a Decade Ago

Safina Haleema and Anthony O’Connor claim that a concrete wall built by their neighbours, Amy McKeown, an award-winning mental health consultant, and her husband Matthew Dalton, is protruding 90cm into their £1.5million property.

The couple insists this encroachment warrants compensation of around £100,000.

On the other side, Ms McKeown and Mr Dalton call the claims “absurd” and argue the allegations are riddled with inconsistencies.

Their barrister, Hugh Rowan, says the dispute has made it impossible for his clients to sell their home, leaving them effectively trapped by a claim they consider baseless.

Agreements and Allegations

Central to the case is an agreement signed in 2016, which, according to Mr Dalton and Ms McKeown, explicitly allowed for a wall in their basement extension that straddled the boundary line.

The plaintiffs, however, argue that the wall overspilled into their land.

Barrister Phillip Jones, representing Mr O’Connor and Ms Haleema, framed the issue simply: Did the defendants’ basement construction result in concrete encroaching up to 900mm onto their land?

He maintains that the conflict emerged during a basement dig over a decade ago and only came to light when the plaintiffs undertook their own project in 2020.

A Legal Tug-of-War in a Celebrity Neighbourhood

The case has now reached Mayor’s and City County Court in north London, a neighborhood known for its high-profile residents.

Legal costs have already hit £160,000, and both sides are digging in for what could be a prolonged fight.

Mr Rowan has argued that any award of compensation would constitute “double recovery” because Mr O’Connor and Ms Haleema previously received an insurance payout for the overspill in 2023.

He added that the plaintiffs’ own expert had acknowledged the 2016 agreement allowed a “retaining wall astride the party wall boundary.”

Confusion Over the Facts

Part of the difficulty in resolving the dispute is the lack of clarity around the exact location of the overspill.

“Over the last half a decade, my clients have repeatedly sought to understand the claimants’ case,” said Mr Rowan.

“But the claimants themselves do not appear to know what their own case is. Their pleadings are full of inconsistencies, contradictions, and speculation.”

Despite this, the plaintiffs’ barrister insists that the wall “hugely exceeded” the permitted works, significantly encroaching onto their land.

This disagreement over the facts has made a resolution elusive, with each side portraying the other as unreasonable.

Judge Declines to Dismiss Case

During a pre-trial hearing, Ms McKeown and Mr Dalton asked Judge Nicholas Parfitt to dismiss the claim entirely, describing it as “hopeless” due to lack of clarity.

The judge, however, refused to strike out the case, instead giving Mr O’Connor and Ms Haleema a final opportunity to submit detailed “particulars of claim.”

What’s Next?

The case is scheduled to return to court at a later date, with the next phase focusing on the plaintiffs’ clarified legal arguments.

Observers note that with property values and neighborhood prestige at stake, the outcome could have long-lasting financial and personal consequences for both couples.

Summary

Two millionaire couples in Primrose Hill are locked in a £260,000 legal dispute over a basement wall that allegedly protrudes 90cm into the plaintiffs’ property.

The conflict stems from a 2016 agreement and construction work done over a decade ago.

Both sides present conflicting accounts, with the defendants claiming the wall was permitted and the plaintiffs asserting significant encroachment.

Legal costs have already reached £160,000, and the court has allowed the plaintiffs a final chance to clarify their claim before the next hearing.