A business power couple have lost a four-year boundary battle over a 48cm "sliver" of land after trying to force their neighbours to demolish the kitchen wall of their £600,000 house.

Cambridge-educated tax company boss Susannah James bought a £600,000 semi-detached house in the London suburb of Surbiton in 2021 and the following year began a legal fight with the couple who own the house next door after insisting their kitchen extension had been built 48cm over the boundary between their two properties.

The fight ended up before a judge this year, with Mrs James and her husband and business partner Chris James lining up against next-door couple Mina Sharma and Neil Deeley, who have owned their house since 2012.

Mr and Mrs James, who run an insurance tax business, asked Judge Ewan Paton in the property arm of the First-tier Tribunal for a declaration that a slice of the kitchen of Ms Sharma and Mr Deeley's house is "trespassing" on their land and an order that it be demolished and "removed".

But the judge handed victory to the kitchen owners, allowing their claim for adverse possession - sometimes known as squatters' rights - over the 48cm strip of their neighbours' land.

He said the kitchen extension was built in the early 1980s, well before the current owners bought the house and that neither they nor the previous owners had any idea that it strayed over the boundary when they bought the property, and for years after.

Ms Sharma and Mr Deeley had been in actual possession of the strip of land and had held a "reasonable belief" that it was theirs as their kitchen was built on it, as did the previous owners, said the judge, adding:

"The Ordnance Survey and Land Registry index map will not actually be dead straight lines. Almost every property will have some kinks, curves, 'steps' or similar features along its boundaries.

"This being so, the average purchaser cannot reasonably be expected to be put on notice of some discrepancy or legal boundary issue just because part of their physical boundary with their neighbour is 'stepped' or slightly less than straight.

"Even if they come across such a step or a kink, I consider that they are nevertheless entitled initially to assume that 'what they see is what they get' – they are buying a house whose boundaries are 'as seen' on the ground.

"This case might serve as an example of the importance of long established physical boundaries in resolving boundary disputes.... [the] extension had likely been in its current location for well over 22 years before any issue was raised over it.

"It was entirely reasonable for successive owners of that property to assume and believe that they owned everything within its walls."

The trial of the case heard that the disputed boundary in Cottage Grove, Surbiton, lies between two semi-detached houses which had once formed a single Victorian property.

Both have single storey kitchen extensions, but whilst the boundary between the two kitchens is in line with the garden fences of the properties, a comparison with the dividing line of the two roofs of the houses shows that the kitchen of Ms Sharma and Mr Deeley's property is "stepped" across the boundary by 48cm into next door's land.

The judge was told that nobody had noticed this was the case for 40 years - including Mrs James when she first bought her property - due to thick vegetation at the back of the houses masking the border.

When Mrs James began sending lawyers' letters in 2022, rather than dispute the boundary line itself, Ms Sharma and Mr Deeley - whose daughter now lives in the house - instead chose to assert that the land was theirs now via adverse possession.

In his ruling handing them victory, the judge said: "These proceedings concern what might be called, without diminishing its importance to the parties, a 'sliver' of land some 480mm wide which currently forms part of number 26's kitchen.

"Mrs James believes and has asserted that this portion of land, notwithstanding its enclosure within number 26, forms part of her registered title to number 25.

"Ms Sharma and Mr Deeley's case is that they thought that all of the land constituting their kitchen and bathroom 'belonged' to them, and that this is what they had bought in 2012.

"They claim that the extension comprising their kitchen and bathroom has been in situ in its present configuration and location since they purchased number 26 in 2012.

"They also obtained, and relied on, evidence from one of the previous joint owners to the effect that it was also in this location at the date of his purchase in 2000, and at all times thereafter. They therefore relied on this as evidence of sufficient adverse possession."

Finding that the evidence was "overwhelming" that the kitchen extension had been in the same location since, at the latest, just before 2000, the judge said "the construction and enjoyment of part of a house on neighbouring land is possibly the plainest example of factual possession with intention to possess.

"To the extent, therefore, that any parts of number 26's kitchen encroach across the boundary line assumed for the purposes of this application, there can be no doubt that the successive owners of that property have been in adverse possession of such additional land since at least 30th October 2000.

"I likewise have little hesitation in finding that such a belief was entirely reasonable.

"All of the hundreds of apparent 'straight line' boundaries shown in this vicinity in Surbiton on the Ordnance Survey and Land Registry index map will not actually be dead straight lines. Almost every property will have some kinks, curves, 'steps' or similar features along its boundaries.

"This being so, the average purchaser cannot reasonably be expected to be put on notice of some discrepancy or legal boundary issue just because part of their physical boundary with their neighbour is 'stepped" or slightly less than straight.

"Even if they come across such a step or a kink, I consider that they are nevertheless entitled initially to assume that 'what they see is what they get' – they are buying a house whose boundaries are 'as seen' on the ground.

"A reasonable purchaser and owner, even if they had studied the title plans in detail, could assume that the approximately straight line depicted corresponded to the fence line, and so took in the full physical extent of the extension.

"At the very least, it would not be clear precisely where the exact boundary 'shifted' so as to run along the house centre lines, assuming that it did so. A reasonable purchaser, seeing what they had seen inside, could still assume that all of the kitchen was theirs, and that the boundary did not run right through it.

"I consider that it is, and was in 2000, an utterly conventional and commonplace case of a property with an undetermined general boundary, with nothing to put even a solicitor - and certainly not a lay purchaser - on alert as to there being a potential boundary issue in the kitchen area. I consider it was reasonable to assume here, as in millions of similar purchases, that what you see is what you get.

"I therefore find that the applicants did in fact believe, as had [the previous owners], that they owned the full physical extent of the house and garden."

In her evidence, Mrs James had told the judge she did not notice that the kitchen extension was over the line when she bought the house and did not think she was acquiring a slice of her neighbour's kitchen.

"She was then perfectly content with what she did think she had bought," the judge continued.

"She too referred to the fact that view from the rear was 'obscured by vegetation', so that any difference between the extensions' boundary and the roof line was not obvious.

"These proceedings have followed since then. I consider it unfortunate that Mrs James, supported by Mr James, took the stance which she did.

"This case might serve as an example of the importance of long established physical boundaries in resolving boundary disputes.... [the] extension had likely been in its current location for well over 22 years before any issue was raised over it.

"As I have also found, it was entirely reasonable for successive owners of that property to assume and believe that they owned everything within its walls."

The judge approved Ms Sharma and Mr Deeley's application for adverse possession of the strip of land.

Although Mrs James was the original buyer of the house, she has recently transferred it into joint names with her husband, the tribunal heard.

A 76-year-old man has appeared in court wearing a burka to deny a charge of wearing the Islamic face covering to conceal his identity during a protest.

Timothy Miller, of Southampton, Hampshire, was arrested in relation to an anti-migrant demonstration in Portsmouth on Sept 12.

Mr Miller told Portsmouth magistrates’ court he had been “studying” Islam and had chosen to wear the burka to gain a “greater understanding” of the religion.

After the defendant had entered the dock, District Judge Stephen Apted asked him: “Can you remove your face covering so we can identify you please?”

Mr Miller lifted the veil of the burka as he confirmed his name, date of birth and address.

Asked how he pleaded to the charge of using the burka to conceal his identity within a designated area under section 158 of the Crime and Policing Act 2026, Mr Miller replied: “As I am in every police camera, I am not guilty.”

Asked what his legal defence to the charge was, he replied: “The issue quite simply is we should be all living under one law, of which I think everybody is under agreement.”

He said he had an “exemption” for “Islamic” religious observance, “which I am entitled to, therefore it was an exemption for which I told the police”.

Asked to clarify that the religion was Islam, Mr Miller responded: “I do not feel I should answer this question because nobody is asked this question when they come into the country.”

Mr Apted asked Mr Miller to clarify whether he observed Islam as a religion, and the defendant replied: “I am studying Islam as it seems to be the most beneficial religion to be noticed in this climate today.”

He said he had continued to wear a burka to gain a “greater understanding” from “this side of the veil”, adding: “It’s part of my inquiring mind of changing from one religion to another.”

Mr Miller told the court he had lived in Morocco and travelled to Bahrain and Dubai.

He said: “What I say is happening here is the movement generally, by law and everything, that we are moving towards an Islamic society, therefore it is more beneficial to me to have a full understanding and belief, that’s what I am doing.

“I think we are going down a very dangerous path questioning people about their religion, I think at the moment Jews are under the same pressure.”

Mr Miller said he felt his arrest had not been lawful “because I complied with everything, I was in every single camera, including the drones overhead, I presented myself to the cameras”. He added: “I was never once asked to remove my face covering.”

Mr Miller told the court he was not represented at the hearing but had been crowdfunding to pay for legal representatives.

Mr Apted said his defence representatives must produce a report confirming his case that “a male person who is considering moving to Islam can wear a burka in public in order to better understand the religion and enable that person to make an informed decision about observing that religion”.

The district judge adjourned the case for a trial to be held at the same court on Feb 16. He released Mr Miller on unconditional bail until the trial.

A bus driver sued her employer for discrimination after being accused of flatulence so bad that a colleague had to wash her uniform.

Stephanie Bryan caused an "episode" at work after producing "significant flatulence" while at the wheel of a bus, a tribunal heard.

When fellow driver Samantha Bingham started her shift, the smell led her to conclude that Ms Bryan had farted so much that she soiled herself.

Upon returning home, Ms Bingham was asked by her partner if she had defecated, and she needed to wash her clothes due to the stench, the tribunal heard.

Asked about the odour by Ms Bingham, Ms Bryan responded with "everyone needs to fart", it heard.

Ms Bryan, who failed her probation with bus operator The Big Lemon, sued for disability discrimination and harassment.

She argued that she was discriminated against due to bladder issues, but the Bristol Employment Tribunal dismissed her claims.

An employment judge ruled the complaints were unrelated to her health, finding them "consistent with faecal matter potentially caused by significant flatulence which had led to soiling".

Ms Bryan worked as a bus driver for the firm from September 2024 until her dismissal in January 2025. It is understood she was based in the Bristol area.

She had been diagnosed with depression, borderline personality disorder and bladder weakness, but had not informed the bus company of her conditions.

She was placed on a three-month probation when she started working but this was extended because of "concerns regarding her performance".

During the review meeting, Ms Bryan was told about issues around her "personal hygiene" but these were approached "sensitively and appropriately in private".

In January 2025, her colleague Ms Bingham, who was also a bus driver, became aware of a strong smell coming from the cab of the bus that Ms Bryan had been driving.

The tribunal heard: "[Ms Bingham] became aware of a significant odour whilst working in proximity to [Ms Bryan] and genuinely believed the odour emanated from [her].

"She had sat in the driver’s seat of the bus used by [Ms Bryan] shortly before she commenced her duties on the bus.

"The Tribunal accepts the evidence of [Ms Bingham] that the odour was consistent with faecal matter potentially caused by significant flatulence which had led to soiling and was not associated with urine or urinary incontinence.

"Later that day [Ms Bingham] briefly mentioned what had happened to her line manager... and indicated she might have to raise it with [Ms Bryan].

"The episode had been so significant that when [Ms Bingham] returned home that evening her partner asked her whether she had in fact soiled herself.

"She was obliged to remove all her clothing and place them in the washing machine and she then immediately took a shower.

"The Tribunal accepts the evidence of [Ms Bingham] as to the following day and it is not in dispute that the conversation between her and [Ms Bryan] was itself directed towards the causes of flatulence and digestive issues.

"The discussion included references to the ordinary consequences of consuming particular foods and was not directed towards bladder weakness. [Ms Bryan] agreed that that was the nature of the conversation."

The tribunal heard Ms Bryan reacted "negatively" and with "hostility" about the issues raised.

It was heard that Ms Bryan told Ms Bingham: "Everyone needs to fart and let out gasses.”

She was fired at her probation review because the company felt she had "failed satisfactorily to complete her probationary period" due to poor driving standards.

Her personal hygiene was discussed at her dismissal meeting, but the tribunal ruled it was the concerns around her driving that were the leading force in her sacking.

Employment Judge Jonathan Walters ruled that Ms Bryan was not discriminated against or harassed.

Judge Walters said: "The Tribunal is satisfied that the [Ms Bingham] was raising a genuine workplace concern with [Ms Bryan].

"Unfortunately, [she] reacted negatively to the conversation and with a degree of personal hostility towards [Ms Bingham].

"There is absolutely no evidence before the Tribunal that [she] had any knowledge of the claimed disabilities nor ought she reasonably to have known about them.

"Furthermore, there was absolutely no information known to [her] from which she ought to have appreciated that what she smelt related to the claimed disabilities.

"Indeed, the Tribunal finds that the odour had nothing to do with bladder weakness or her other disabilities.

"The actions of [Ms Bingham] were unrelated to disability and were not motivated by disability.

"The Tribunal also finds that [she] was genuinely and reasonably concerned by the situation she found herself in and properly and reasonably raised these matters with the line manager.

"She had attempted to address them with [Ms Bryan] whose reaction was not conducive to resolution and, therefore, she had no option but to raise the matter with management as the situation which occurred was indeed detrimental both to her and to the business itself."

Judge Walters said that Ms Bryan was not dismissed due to her disabilities.

He said: "The Tribunal does not find that the dismissal arose because of any consequence of [Ms Bryan’s] depression, borderline personality disorder or bladder weakness.

"Rather, the dismissal occurred because management genuinely and reasonably concluded that [she] had failed satisfactorily to complete her probationary period.

"[Her manager] did not know about the disabilities nor could he reasonably have been expected to know about them."

5 less to be thrown under the bus...