Couple lose boundary fight over 48cm kitchen extension
A judge ruled that a kitchen extension built in the 1980s had acquired 'squatters rights' over a strip of neighbouring land.
News London evidence indexOpen analysis ▾
Named judge and parties are cited, plus official ruling quoted, giving moderate corroboration.
Higher is stronger
Provides clear facts, specific figures and quotes, but lacks party quotations and next‑step details.
Higher is stronger
Headline is dramatic but article matches content, showing only mild emphasis.
Lower is better
A couple have lost a four-year boundary dispute over a 48cm strip of land after a judge ruled that their neighbours' kitchen extension had acquired rights through adverse possession, also known as squatters' rights. The ruling means the extension, built in the early 1980s, will not be demolished.
The boundary dispute
London rents rise 1.5% to £2,357 per month
Average monthly rent for new lets in the capital increases for the tenth consecutive month.
The case centred on Cottage Grove in Surbiton, where the disputed boundary lies between two semi-detached houses that were originally a single Victorian property. Ms Susannah James and her husband, Mr Chris James, purchased their house for £600,000 in 2021. The following year, they initiated legal proceedings against their neighbours, Ms Mina Sharma and Mr Neil Deeley, asserting that the kitchen extension of Ms Sharma and Mr Deeley's property encroached by 48cm onto their land.
Mr and Mrs James asked a judge in the First-tier Tribunal to declare that a section of Ms Sharma and Mr Deeley's kitchen was trespassing on their property and sought an order for its demolition. However, the judge, Mr Ewan Paton, found in favour of the kitchen owners, granting their claim for adverse possession.
Adverse possession ruling
Former Shepherd's Bush cinema to become padel centre
Hammersmith and Fulham Council unanimously approved plans to convert the vacant West 12 Shopping Centre Vue cinema into an 11-court sports facility.
Judge Paton stated that the kitchen extension was constructed well before the current owners purchased their respective properties. He noted that neither Ms Sharma and Mr Deeley, nor the previous owners of their house, had any knowledge of the encroachment when they bought the property or for many years afterwards. The judge determined that Ms Sharma and Mr Deeley, along with previous owners, had been in actual possession of the land strip and held a reasonable belief that it belonged to them.
The judge explained that Ordnance Survey and Land Registry maps often show boundaries with minor irregularities. He concluded that an average purchaser should not be expected to identify a boundary issue simply because a physical boundary has a slight 'step' or is not perfectly straight. He added that purchasers are entitled to assume that the boundaries 'as seen' on the ground are the ones they are buying.
Evidence presented indicated that the kitchen extension had been in its current location for over 22 years before the dispute arose. The judge found the evidence 'overwhelming' that the extension had been in place since at least just before 2000. He stated that constructing and occupying part of a house on neighbouring land is a clear example of factual possession with the intention to possess.
What happens next
The ruling means that the 48cm strip of land will now be legally considered part of Ms Sharma and Mr Deeley's property. The Jameses' claim for demolition and removal of the encroaching section of the kitchen was dismissed by the tribunal.
Questions this report answers
+What was the boundary dispute about?
The dispute concerned a 48cm strip of land along the boundary between two houses on Cottage Grove, Surbiton. The claimants alleged that the kitchen extension of their neighbours, Ms Sharma and Mr Deeley, encroached onto their property.
+Who won the legal battle?
Ms Sharma and Mr Deeley, the owners of the house with the kitchen extension, won the legal battle. A judge ruled that they had acquired rights to the disputed land through adverse possession, also known as squatters' rights.
+Why was adverse possession granted?
The judge found that the kitchen extension had been in its current location since the early 1980s. Successive owners of the property had a reasonable belief that the land occupied by the extension was theirs, and had been in factual possession of it for over 22 years.
News London Desk
This article was written at the News London news desk from the reporting of the outlets listed below it. Drafting is done by a language model under human editorial supervision — there is no reporter behind this byline, and we would rather say so than invent one.
How stories are produced and scoredWho runs News LondonCorrections
The London Ledger
A considered capital-wide edit delivered each morning.
More Coverage in Property & Planning
London rents rise 1.5% to £2,357 per month
Former Shepherd's Bush cinema to become padel centre
John Griffin sells Regent's Park home for £9.2m loss
