Two affluent couples residing in a prestigious London neighborhood are embroiled in a legal dispute amounting to £260,000 over a three-foot protrusion in a basement wall.

Safina Haleema and Anthony O’Connor have initiated legal action against award-winning mental health consultant Amy McKeown and her husband, Matthew Dalton, concerning the uneven wall within their £1.5 million Primrose Hill residence.

The plaintiffs claim that the concrete protrusion extends 90cm into their property and are seeking approximately £100,000 in damages from their perplexed neighbors.

However, McKeown and Dalton are standing firm. They assert that the “absurd” six-year confrontation has hindered their ability to sell their home and argue that their neighbors’ allegations are “full of inconsistencies.”

The couple’s lawyer, Hugh Rowan, contends that a 2016 agreement permitted the construction of a wall for their basement extension that “straddled the boundary line,” an arrangement Haleema and her partner later disputed.

This dispute, unfolding in the celebrity-favored area of North London, has now escalated to the Mayor’s and City County Court, with legal expenses already reaching £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 Dalton’s home (centre-left) and that of Ms Haleema and Mr O’Connor (centre-right)

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.’

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.