Louis v Sadiq
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 November 1996 |
| Date | 12 November 1996 |
| Court | Court 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
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)...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Kaye v Lawrence
...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......
-
Raheel Shah v Ken Power
... ... the Act and its predecessors as being long-standing and referred in that regard to the decisions in Selby v Whitbread [1917] 1 KB 736 and Louis v Sadiq (1997) 74 P & C R 325 ... Judge Parfitt saw the latter case as having relevance to the current case and as holding that in the absence of a ... ...
- Hough and another v Annear and another
-
Roadrunner Properties Ltd v Dean
...scheme is to exclude a common law remedy. Such a submission could not be advanced in the light of the decision of this court in Louis and Another v Sadiq (1996) 74 P&CR 325 at 333. Nor, in the present case, would a claim for breach of statutory duty add anything to a claim in common law......
-
The site
...[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......