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 plaintiff’s common law rights are subject to the defendant’s statutory rights. A new series of respective obligations have been introduced, the common law was seen to be insufficient for the adjustment of modern complex conditions. Hence I think the Act . . is not in addition to but in substitution for the common law for matters which fall within the Act. It is a governing and exhaustive code and the common law is, by implication, repealed.’
Judges:
McCardie J
Citations:
[1917] 1 KB 735
Cited by:
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 – 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
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.272862
