Roadrunner Properties Ltd v Dean and another
Series: Estates Gazette ; [2004] 11 EG 140-145(6)Publication details: 2004Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2003] EWCA Civ 1816, 21 November 2003. Appeal by claimant (R) against County Court decision dismissing claim for damages at common law alleging nuisance and negligence due to R's failure to comply with the Party Wall Etc Act 1996. The appeal was concerned with establishing the causation of the damage. D failed to serve a notice under the Act and therefore R was advised that the provisions of the Act could not be invoked and therefore instigated a claim for damages in the County Court. R argued that the damage was caused by the use of the Kango hammer drill whilst D maintained that some of the damage could be contributed to by shrinkage of the floor tiles. "Held": that the coincidence between the dislocation to the floor tiles and the work being done to the party wall was a proper factor to take into account when drawing inferences as to causation. As D had failed to serve a party wall notice R had been denied the opportunity to have a pre-works survey. Appeal allowed. View judgment at www.bailii.org.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Date due | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS67573 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 125563-1001 |
[2003] EWCA Civ 1816, 21 November 2003. Appeal by claimant (R) against County Court decision dismissing claim for damages at common law alleging nuisance and negligence due to R's failure to comply with the Party Wall Etc Act 1996. The appeal was concerned with establishing the causation of the damage. D failed to serve a notice under the Act and therefore R was advised that the provisions of the Act could not be invoked and therefore instigated a claim for damages in the County Court. R argued that the damage was caused by the use of the Kango hammer drill whilst D maintained that some of the damage could be contributed to by shrinkage of the floor tiles. "Held": that the coincidence between the dislocation to the floor tiles and the work being done to the party wall was a proper factor to take into account when drawing inferences as to causation. As D had failed to serve a party wall notice R had been denied the opportunity to have a pre-works survey. Appeal allowed. View judgment at www.bailii.org.