Taylor Tuxford Associates has over the past few months been
involved in three formal Disputes under the Party Wall etc Act 1996 that have
arisen following building works that have commenced without first serving the
requisite Notice upon the adjoining property owners. We are currently also instructed in regard to
a fourth such case, which is still in the process of being determined.
The disputes in question arose because the adjoining owners
in each case claimed that damage had been caused to their property as a result
of the works undertaken by the building owner’s contractors.
The Party Wall etc Act requires that in instances where a
building owner wishes to carry out works to their property that fall subject to
the Act, then they must serve written Notice upon any affected adjoining
property owners.
It is a generally held principle in English & Welsh Law
that the “accused” person or corporate body is “innocent until proven guilty” and
the accuser is obliged to provide that proof.
However, in instances where “work falling subject to the Act” (i.e. the
Party Wall etc Act 1996) is carried out without compliance with the
requirements of the Act in regard to the service of a Notice etc, then this principle
may not apply.
This stems from a Court of Appeal judgement in 2003 where
Lord Justice Chadwick stated in his judgement that “…if it can be shown that the damage which has occurred is the sort of
damage which one may expect to occur from the nature of the works that have
been carried out…he (i.e. the building owner in that instance) should not be allowed to obtain forensic
advantage by his own failure to comply with the statutory requirements…”
In other words, the Judge applied a reverse burden of proof
and the building owner was thus obliged to prove that the damage had NOT been
caused as a result of his building works.
From our extensive experience, this is extremely difficult to achieve in
the majority of cases “after the event”.
In the case of the two disputes referred to earlier, the end
result was that the building owners in each instance faced substantial
additional expense relating to the repair of the damage plus the fees of the
surveyors in resolving the dispute.
Does anyone reading this entry believe that they may have
inadvertently placed themselves in a similar position?
No comments:
Post a Comment