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 arbitration.
Held: The claimants had not shown that there was any threat to their building and were not entitled to pursue the claim.
Judges:
Toulmin CMG QC J
Citations:
[2008] TCLR 11, [2008] EWHC 2005 (TCC)
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Louis and Another v Sadiq CA 12-Nov-1996
There was a two-storey end of terrace house in North London owned by Mr Sadiq and his neighbours, Mr and Mrs Louis. The appellant had commenced substantial works to his house, which caused damage to the party wall. The appellant had not complied . .
Cited – Selby v Whitbread and Co 1917
McCardie J considered the tension between the common law and statute: ‘An examination of the code shows that common law rights are dealt with in a revolutionary manner. The two sets of rights . . are quite inconsistent with one another. The . .
Cited – Louis v Sadiq CA 22-Nov-1996
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 . .
Cited – Roadrunner Properties Ltd v Dean and Another CA 21-Nov-2003
Where an application is made under the 1996 Act, as to the issue of causation of damage, a court can properly take a reasonably robust approach where the damage to the adjoining owner’s property is of the sort one would expect to result from the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.272797
