Party Wall etc. Act 1996 specialists · London & the Midlands Free advice · info@coburnspartywall.co.uk · 0207 11 88 3 55
Knowledge base · Case law

Roadrunner Properties Ltd v Dean (2004) - evidence problems can rebound on the non-compliant party

Roadrunner Properties Ltd v Dean is an important warning for building owners who ignore the Party Wall Act.

Overview

Roadrunner Properties Ltd v Dean is an important warning for building owners who ignore the Party Wall Act.

If you fail to follow the Act, the court may be less sympathetic when evidence becomes unclear.

What happened

The building owner cut into a party wall using a kango hammer without first serving the required notice. Damage was alleged, but the evidence was not conclusive.

The decision

The Court of Appeal treated the lack of clear evidence as a problem created by the building owner's failure to comply with the Act. The claimant's evidence was considered sufficient in the circumstances.

Why it matters

A schedule of condition and proper party wall procedure create evidence. If a building owner chooses not to follow that process, they may lose the benefit of evidential certainty later.

That can be costly.

Practical lesson

Before carrying out notifiable works: - serve valid notices; - allow the statutory process to operate; - record condition properly; - avoid starting work first and explaining later.

Takeaway

Ignoring the Act increases more than procedural risk. It can also damage your position on evidence if a dispute or damage claim follows.

Disclaimer. This article is for general information only and is not legal or professional advice. It is not tailored to any specific property, project or dispute, and the law and its application can change. Always seek advice from a suitably qualified professional before taking action. Coburns Party Wall accepts no liability for action taken in reliance on this article.

Have a party wall matter?

Articles are a great starting point — for advice on your specific situation, just get in touch.