Party Walls in UK Law

Thus, the exclusion by the words of clause 2 of the underlease of "any part of the outside walls" would not have the effect of taking outside the operation of paragraph (a) that which, in the ordinary use of language, would be regarded as the exterior wall of the flat - an essential integral part of the flat, as a dwelling-house: that part of the outside wall of the block of flats which constitutes a wall of the flat, The paragraph applies to the outside wall or walls of the flat; the outside of inner party walls of the flat; the outer sides of horizontal divisions between Plat 20 and flats above and below; the structural framework and beams directly supporting floors, ceilings and walls of the flat.

Once the former client has established that the defendant firm is in possession of information which was imparted in confidence and that the firm is proposing to act for another party with an interest adverse to his in a matter to which the information is or may be relevant, the evidential burden shifts to the defendant firm to show that even so there is no risk that the information will come into the possession of those now acting for the other party.

As a matter of interpretation, the “dispute” mentioned in s.10(1), (10)(b), (12)(c) and (13)(c) is a dispute arising under the provisions of the 1996 Act, whether an actual dispute within s.1(8) or a deemed dispute under s.4(5) or s.6(7), or a dispute under some other provision, such as s.7(2) (compensation for loss and damage resulting from execution of work executed pursuant to the 1996 Act), s.11(2) (responsibility for the expenses of work), s.11(8) (expenses of making good damage under the 1996 Act) or s.13(2) (objection to building owner's account of expenses).

The law thus became well established that the solicitor or counsel retained in an action has an implied authority as between himself and his client to compromise the suit without reference to the client, provided that the compromise does not involve matter "collateral to the action"; and ostensible authority, as between himself and the opposing litigant, to compromise the suit without actual proof of authority, subject to the same limitation; and that a compromise does not involve "collateral matter" merely because it contains terms which the Court could not have ordered by way of judgment in the action; for example, the return of the piano in the Prestwich case: the withdrawal of the imputations in the Matthews case, and the highly complicated terms of compromise in Little -v- Spreadbury (1910) 2 K.B. 658.

Mr Hughes QC suggested in argument that this greatly overstated the position because in truth one still had, after, as well as before, a “box” representing the house i.e. the party walls with numbers 46 and 52, together with most of the front elevation and a large part of the rear elevation. In one sense, of course, that is true but the mere retention of walls (or most of them) does not mean that there cannot be substantial demolition.

In Sivasubramaniam, this court was at pains to emphasise the narrowness of the gap left open by its decision. A mere error of law by the circuit judge in the county court would not be sufficient. The possibility was confined to "very rare cases", on the ground of an excess of jurisdiction in "the narrow, pre— Anisminic sense", or the denial of the right to a fair hearing.

This proposition is unexceptionable; but the lessor in turn must live with its converse – that the obligation to keep the building in repair has to coexist with the tenant's entitlement to quiet enjoyment of the premises he is paying rent for. This by itself points towards a threshold, for disturbance by repairs, of all reasonable precautions rather than all possible precautions.