Cases - Hobbs, Hart & Co. v Grover

Record details

Name
Hobbs, Hart & Co. v Grover
Date
[1899]
Citation
1 CH 11
Legislation
Keywords
Party walls – notice needs to be sufficiently clear – recipient consent to works - easements - London Building Act 1894 - Party Wall etc Act 1996, s. 2
Summary

The applicant and respondent owned adjoining properties separated by a party wall. The respondent wanted to demolish and rebuild his property and served a notice under the section in the London Building Act 1894 (equivalent to section 3 of the 1996 Act). The notice should have specified the 'nature and particulars of the proposed work' (this requirement appears in the 1996 Act at section 3(1)(b)). Instead it simply said that the intention was 'to execute such of the following works to the said party structure as may on survey be found necessary or desirable', and listed all of the permitted works set out in the section of the London Building Act 1894 (the equivalent of section 2 of the 1996 Act).

The applicant applied for an injunction to restrain the works and the judge ordered the respondent to provide further information about the intended works. The respondent appealed, but after unfavourable indications from the Court of Appeal settled the appeal. The Court of Appeal had observed, among other things, that:

'the notice ought to be so clear and intelligible that the adjoining owner may be able to see what counter-notice he should give to the building owner under section 89 [of the London Building Act 1894]. This is the key to the whole matter'.