Millionaire Primrose Hill neighbours embroiled in ‘absurd’ £260,000 legal battle over wonky basement wall
Two millionaire couples living in an exclusive London suburb are locked in a £260,000 battle over a three-foot bulge in a basement wall.
Safina Haleema and Anthony O’Connor are suing award-winning mental health consultant Amy McKeown and her husband Matthew Dalton over the wonky wall in their £1.5million Primrose Hill home.
The complainants say that the concrete bulge encroaches by 90cm into their property and are asking for some £100,000 in compensation from their baffled neighbours.
But Ms McKeown and Mr Dalton aren’t budging. They claim that the ‘absurd’ six-year battle has left them unable to sell up – and that their neighbours’ claim is ‘riddled with inconsistencies’.
The couple’s barrister, Hugh Rowan, argues that an agreement signed in 2016 allowed for a wall in their basement extension which ‘straddled the boundary line’ – but Mr O’Connor and Ms Haleema later changed their minds.
The spat, set against the backdrop of the celebrity-studded north London neighbourhood, has now reached Mayor’s and City County Court having already racked up legal costs totalling £160,000.
Outlining his clients’ position, Mr O’Connor and Ms Haleema’s barrister, Phillip Jones, 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?’
Primrose Hill residents Amy McKeown and Matthew Dalton (pictured) are being sued by their neighbours over a three-foot bulge in their basement wall
Safina Haleema and Anthony O’Connor (pictured left and right) are asking for £100,000 in compensation over the concrete bulge encroaching 90cm into their property
Pictured: Ms Mckeown and Mr Dolton’s home (centre-left) and that of Ms Haleema and Mr O’Connor
He added that the conflict stemmed from basement works carried out a decade ago, which resulted in what was described as ‘overspill’.
But Mr Dalton and Ms McKeown deny that their wall ‘trespasses’ over the boundary line into their neighbours’ basement and are disputing their bid for a court ruling on the precise location of the boundary line, as well as their claim for £100,000 in compensation.
‘My clients have been stuck in limbo for the past six years,’ said Ms McKeown and Mr Dalton’s barrister, Hugh Rowan. ‘They can’t sell their house or move away because to do so would reveal the existence of this dispute.’
He argued that any compensation award would be unfair ‘double recovery’ for Mr O’Connor and Ms Haleema, since they previously received an insurance payout for the concrete overspill in 2023.
‘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”,’ he continued.
Barrister Rohan added that Mr O’Connor and Ms Haleema are yet to clarify exactly where the ‘overspill’ from the basement wall begins.
He told Judge Nicholas Parfitt: ‘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 that – ‘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 clash 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.
However, after several hours of dense argument, the judge declined to dismiss the case, ruling that 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.