Cases - Udal v Dutton
Record details
- Name
- Udal v Dutton
- Date
- [2007]
- Citation
- EWHC 2862 (TCC)
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Party walls
- Summary
-
The claimants sought an interim injunction prohibiting the defendants from further demolishing the party fence wall between their properties in breach of a party wall award. They also sought a mandatory injunction requiring the defendants to erect a hoarding at the points at which the fence had already been demolished to protect their garden pending a resolution as to the works to be carried out.
The injunctions were granted. The relevant principles in determining whether interim relief should be granted were satisfied. There was a serious issue to be tried; the balance of convenience favoured an injunction because it would protect what was left of the wall and replace on a temporary basis that part of the wall that had been demolished; and damages were not an adequate remedy because a householder who sees part of their property destroyed without their consent is more concerned to preserve their property rights than to secure damages.
Therefore, the court might be reluctant to conclude that damages are an adequate remedy in circumstances in which property rights are infringed. A party who acts without complying fully with the 1996 Act might well be prevented by injunction, with the associated legal costs.
An adjoining owner may also wish to apply for an injunction to prevent work being carried out in accordance with a party wall award, where he considers that the award is invalid or has been made without jurisdiction.