Photo credit: Champion News
What the judge said
Nobody had noticed the discrepancy for around 40 years, according to the tribunal. The kitchen extension is believed to have been built in the early 1980s, long before Ms Sharma and Mr Deeley purchased their home in 2012. Evidence from a previous joint owner indicated that the extension had been in the same position since at least 2000.
Because the extension had likely stood in the same place for more than 22 years before the issue was raised, the tribunal approved the neighbours’ application for adverse possession of the land.
the roof line of the houses reveals that the neighbours’ kitchen “steps” across the boundary by 48 centimetres While the boundary between the two kitchens follows the garden fence line. Thick vegetation at the rear of the properties obscured the border, and even Mrs James said, as per reports, that she did not realise when she bought her home that she might be acquiring a small part of her neighbour’s kitchen. The judge described the evidence as “overwhelming” that the kitchen had remained in that location for well over two decades before the dispute began, it was reported. In comments reported by The Independent, Judge Paton said a purchaser is entitled to assume that “what they see is what they get” when buying a home whose boundaries appear as seen on the ground. He also said the case showed the importance of long-established physical boundaries in resolving disputes.
The homes in Cottage Grove, Surbiton, were once part of a single Victorian property before being divided into two semi-detached houses. Both properties have single-storey kitchen extensions at the rear. He added that it was entirely reasonable for successive owners to believe they owned everything within the walls of their property. For buyers, the case is a reminder that a property’s registered title plan may not perfectly match what exists on the ground. Fences, extensions, garden walls and older buildings can all create small differences that remain unnoticed for decades.
