Judge gives couple ‘squatters’ rights’ over 48cm sliver of land after new neighbours tried to have 40-year-old kitchen extension demolished over tiny boundary breach
Susannah and Chris James lost a four-year dispute with their neighbours over a 48cm strip of land beneath a kitchen extension in Surbiton, south-west London. The couple had asked a tribunal to declare the extension trespass and order its removal, but the judge recognised the neighbours’ claim to the land through adverse possession.
The extension was built in the early 1980s, and the current owners, Mina Sharma and Neil Deeley, and previous owners believed the land within its walls belonged to them. The judge said the boundary had gone unchallenged for decades and that buyers could reasonably rely on established physical boundaries, which may not match straight lines on official maps. The Jameses bought their £600,000 home in 2021, and the dispute began the following year.
- Neighbours retain a 48cm strip beneath their kitchen extension.
- The extension had stood in place since the early 1980s.
- A tribunal recognised the owners’ adverse possession claim.
New here? Start with this
Adverse possession is a legal route by which someone may acquire rights over land they have occupied for a long time without the registered owner’s permission. The rules depend on the circumstances and length of occupation, and a claim may be contested.
In this case, the land lies beneath part of a kitchen extension built in the early 1980s. Mina Sharma and Neil Deeley, who owned the neighbouring home, and earlier owners believed the strip within the extension’s walls was theirs; Susannah and Chris James, who bought the adjoining house in 2021, challenged that boundary.
The dispute highlights how a boundary visible on the ground can differ from a line on official maps, and why long-standing use may matter when ownership is contested. It also shows how a small area of land can affect neighbours’ property rights.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Sharma and Deeley can argue that the extension and boundary had stood openly for about 40 years, with successive owners reasonably treating the enclosed strip as part of their property. Recognising long, unchallenged possession can provide certainty and protect people who have relied in good faith on established physical boundaries.
The case against
The Jameses can argue that a boundary recorded in legal title should carry weight, and that a structure crossing it may deprive neighbours of land without their agreement. They sought a clear remedy after discovering the discrepancy, and may see it as unfair for long-standing use by previous owners to determine what they acquired.