Cases - Seef v Ho
Record details
- Name
- Seef v Ho
- Date
- [2011]
- Citation
- EWCA Civ 186
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Party walls - informal conversations alone cannot be taken as consent to proceed
- Summary
-
In this case involving failure to serve a Party Wall Act notice when building a garage extension, Thomas LJ in the leading judgment in the Court of Appeal emphasised that:
‘when a neighbour seeks to do work that affects another neighbour, informal conversations as to what is proposed are highly desirable. However, an informal discussion over the garden fence cannot, in my view, be taken objectively as a simply consent to proceed with the work without more.
A neighbour who has given the consent would obviously expect that, if planning permission was required or consent under the Party Wall Act was needed, the processes would be put in train and the obligations imposed by the planning authorities or under the Party Wall Act observed as a condition of consent.’
An oral consent to works was therefore conditional upon a proper notice being served. However, this case was also notable because no order for costs was made in favour of either party, in effect a mark of disapproval for litigating a dispute of little real value.