Louis v Sadiq

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date12 November 1996
Date12 November 1996
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)

Court of Appeal

Before Lord Justice Evans, Lord Justice Henry and Lord Justice Aldous


Damages - unauthorised building works - nuisance - liability to neighbours

Liability for structural works causing damage

A building owner who undertook structural building works affecting a party wall without complying with the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939, and thereby caused damage to adjoining property, was liable to the owners of the adjoining property for damages for nuisance, including special damages incurred through loss of sale of the property.

The fact that the building owner subsequently complied with the Act did not exonerate him from or reduce his liability for a pre-existing nuisance which continued thereafter, unless and until the works which created the nuisance were subsequently authorised by agreement or by surveyors under the statutory procedures.

The Court of Appeal so held in a reserved judgment, dismissing an appeal by the defendant, Mohammed Sadiq, against the order of Judge Platt, at Shoreditch County Court on May 16, 1995, whereby he awarded the plaintiffs, Paul and Paula Louis, damages in respect of the defendant's nuisance, including £22,762 mortgage interest payable between November 1, 1988 and March 31, 1993 on the loss of sale of their property, 79,000 French francs increased costs of building a property in Guadaloupe for the same period, £12,500 general damages and £1,500 damages for distress and inconvenience in respect of a separate item.

Mrs Ann McAllister for the defendant; Mr David Gerrey for the plaintiffs.

LORD JUSTICE EVANS said that the appeal raised issues concerning the rights and duties of neighbours whose properties were divided by a party wall. Being in London, the properties were regulated by the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939.


The defendant owned 50 Jenner Road, Stoke Newington, London, an end of terrace house. His neighbours at number 52 were the plaintiffs.

Early in the summer of 1988, the defendant told Mrs Louis that he wanted to build a small further extension to the rear of his property. Mrs Louis said she had no objection and heard no more about it.

In August 1988 the defendant began demolition and reconstruction works involving the whole of his house, including demolition of the rear and front wall, which interfered with the party wall. Damage was caused to number 52, including cracks in its front wall.

The plaintiffs issued a writ and obtained an injunction restraining...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Kaye v Lawrence
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Technology and Construction Court)
    • 26 Octubre 2010
    ...as the defendants’ party wall notice had been duly given under the provisions of the Act of 1894.” 58 In the more recent case of Louis and Louis v Sadiq (1997) 74 P. & C.R. 325 a building owner had commenced work without operating the procedures under the London Building Acts (Amendment) Ac......
  • Blake v Reeves
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 24 Junio 2009
    ...relief for causes of action in trespass or nuisance: compare Woodhouse v Consolidated Property Corporation Ltd [1993] 1 EGLR 174; Louis v Sadiq [1977] 1 EGLR 136. Those were the causes of action for the contemplated and threatened proceedings by the Appellant. Leaving aside the 1996 Act, ne......
  • Raheel Shah v Ken Power
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division
    • 11 Febrero 2022
    ...for causes of action in trespass or nuisance: compare Woodhouse v Consolidated Property Corpn Ltd [1993] 1 EGLR 174; Louis v Sadiq [1997] 1 EGLR 136. Those were the causes of action for the contemplated and threatened proceedings by the adjoining owner. Leaving aside the 1996 Act, neither c......
  • Hough and another v Annear and another
    • United Kingdom
    • County Court
    • Invalid date
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • The site
    • United Kingdom
    • Construction Law. Volume II - Third Edition
    • 13 Abril 2020
    ...[1955] VLR 276 at 280, per O’Bryan J; Owners SP 30339 v Torada Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 1154 at [30], per Palmer J. 304 Louis v Sadiq (1996) 59 Con LR 127. 736 ThE SITE an injunction may be ordered to restrain a person from demolishing a party wall, or requiring its reinstatement, where his nei......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT