Cases - Spiers & Son Ltd v Troup

Record details

Name

Spiers & Son Ltd v Troup

Date

[1915]

Citation

84 LJKB

Legislation

London Building Act 1894

Keywords

Party wall - wall dangerous but no requirement to rebuid - didn't wait for permission from the Act to act - notice very vague and hypothetical and insufficient to comply - easements - London Building Act 1894

Summary

The plaintiffs served a party wall notice on the defendant under the 1894 Act. However, before an award was made, they had exposed the party wall. The council required the plaintiffs to demolish the wall as they considered it a dangerous structure, but they made no requirements for rebuilding it. The plaintiffs rebuilt it without waiting for a party wall award and then claimed a contribution to the expenses of building it from the defendant under the Act.

The magistrate's order related only to pulling down the wall. The plaintiffs had failed to comply with the Act in relation to the rebuilding, in that they had done so without a party wall award. They could not for this reason, among others, claim expenses under the Act.

The notice served described the proposed works as pulling down and rebuilding the party structure if, on survey, it were found so defective or out of repair as to make such operation necessary or desirable and to perform all other necessary works incidental thereto. The judge considered this to be very vague and hypothetical and insufficient to comply with the requirements of the Act.