The defendant neighbour had carried out construction works on a joint structure involving its demolition. He had not complied with the requirements of the 1917 Act.
Held: A neighbour doing work on a party wall without complying with the requirements of the Act was creating a nuisance, and he made himself liable for special damages, including some financial losses. A later award under the Act does not relieve a building owner from liability in nuisance or interference with rights of support for works undertaken before the date of the award, and he could not rely upon a defence in the Act, having later complied with it, to excuse his earlier wrong.
Judges:
Evans LJ
Citations:
Gazette 13-Dec-1996, Times 22-Nov-1996, [1997] 1 EGLR 136
Statutes:
London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Rodrigues v Sokal TCC 30-Jul-2008
The parties owned either half of a semi-detached residence. The defendant had undertaken substantial redevelopment works, and the claimant sought damages under the 1996 Act for his failures to follow that Act. The issues had been taken to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land, Damages, Construction
Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.83220
