Daniells v Mendonca and another
Series: Property, Planning and Compensation Reports ; [1999] 78(5) 401-409(5)Publication details: 1999Subject(s): Summary: CA 15 April 1999. The parties lived in adjoining terraced properties. While the plaintiff (D) was on holiday the defendents (M) added a bathroom extension to their house. A wall belonging to D (and built entirely on her land) was used to support the extension. D applied for a mandatory injunction requiring the removal of that part of the extension which encroached on her land and the reinstatement of the roof-felt on her roof. She also claimed an order restraining the defendents from carrying out any further building works other than in accordance with the London Building (Amendment) Act 1939. She further claimed damages and exemplary damages. M admitted the trespass, leaving the question of remedies. The mandatory injunction, the injunction that the work be done in accordance with the 1939 Act and damages were awarded but exemplary damages were refused. Appeal allowed.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Date due | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS61859 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 104412-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
CA 15 April 1999. The parties lived in adjoining terraced properties. While the plaintiff (D) was on holiday the defendents (M) added a bathroom extension to their house. A wall belonging to D (and built entirely on her land) was used to support the extension. D applied for a mandatory injunction requiring the removal of that part of the extension which encroached on her land and the reinstatement of the roof-felt on her roof. She also claimed an order restraining the defendents from carrying out any further building works other than in accordance with the London Building (Amendment) Act 1939. She further claimed damages and exemplary damages. M admitted the trespass, leaving the question of remedies. The mandatory injunction, the injunction that the work be done in accordance with the 1939 Act and damages were awarded but exemplary damages were refused. Appeal allowed.