Another successful injunction Peter J Edmond v Nicholas Bartholomew Denham & Helen Julie Seekings-Denham (2021) H00PE335

Peter J Edmond v Nicholas Bartholomew Denham & Helen Julie Seekings-Denham (2021) H00PE335

Peter J Edmond v Nicholas Bartholomew Denham & Helen Julie Seekings-Denham (2021) H00PE335

I have said it hundreds of times DON’T IGNORE THE PARTY WALL ACT

On 22.04.2021 Philip Antino www.apaproperty.comwas instructed by the Claimant to provide advice on the Defendant’s building works. having identified the 9-points below, all of which were clear breaches of the Party Wall Act, and common law. The second defendant gave an undertaking to stop all works, they did not.

Disingenuously, later that day the defendants instructed their contractors to continue working late in to the evening until 9 pm on the 22.04.21 and to start very early on the 23.04.21 in an attempt to complete notifiable works and avoid an injunction. They failed to complete the works and given the breach of undertaking an injunction was applied for at Cambridge County Court.

The Claimants instructed Mr. Michael Callaghan (“MC”) callaghanm@gepp.co.uk of www.geppsolicitors.co.ukand Mr. Daniel Attridge of Trinity Chambers https://www.trinitychambers.com/team/daniel-attridge/

The defendants had appointed Mr. Adam Cakebread (“BOS”) of www.partywallconsulting.co.ukto prepare and serve various notices. The Claimant did not consent but provided various documents relating to concerns regarding the alleged boundary position and classification of the adjoining owner’s garage and wall.

The defendants did not progress the party wall proceedings to their natural and proper conclusion, which should have been to instruct their BOS to serve a s.10(4) notice. instead, they simply pressed ahead with the following; -

 (1). Excavating foundations on the Claimants land (trespass);

(2). Building a wall across the line of junction (trespass);

(3). Erected scaffolding on the Claimants land (trespass);

(4). Used the Claimants garage roof as a platform to work from (trespass);

(5). Cutaway parts of the Claimants garage wall (trespass);

(6). Projected their facia, soffit, and barge board across the line of junction (trespass);

(7). Projected their guttering across the line of junction (trespass);

(8). Cutaway the Claimants facia and felt to his garage roof (trespass); and

(9). Caused cracking within the garage and utility room.

The defendants instructed Stuart Frame (“SF”) of www.tanfieldchambers.co.ukwho immediately wrote to MC claiming an injunction was incorrect and the matter should be resolved through ADR ( a common argument often advanced by those at Tanfield when their clients are in the wrong)

MC responded s follows: -

 Whilst in certain cases we might well proceed to ADR at this point, as you will be well aware, this is not a type of case that requires pre-action correspondence or ADR and we will take immediate action to protect our client’s property to ensure that no further damage is done. Accordingly, we will proceed as previously indicated. As a consequence of the behavior outlined above, we have no faith that your clients will halt the building works whilst negotiations take place. Indeed, Ben Stronach (a director of the building firm on-site) has told our client that he will not stop the building works until an injunction is in place.

Mr. Frame did not succeed in having the matter to proceed through ADR and prevent the matter from proceeding through the Courts. The matter went before Recorder Anne McAllister on the 07.05.2021 via zoom. At the hearing, the appropriate legal undertakings were given by Mr. Denham.

Grounds for a stay were agreed so that matters can proceed to the proper conclusion under the Party Wall etc. Act 1996.

Mr. Frame again wanted the matter to proceed thereafter through ADR. Mr. Michael Callaghan and Mr. Daniel Attridge, rejected this proposal and it was agreed that the matter should proceed through the party wall procedures.

This is the latest clearest evidence that if an owner does not comply with or as in this case commences the Party wall procedures and then ignores them will be subject to the appropriate legal remedies.  

The issue of costs was raised, Mr. Frame claimed the court cannot address costs at this  time. no cost at this time. Mr. Attridge countered this by saying that Mr. Frame was looking at this through ‘the wrong end of the telescope.’ Mr. Attridge rejected Mr. Frames’ position. Mr. Attridge provided a powerful counter.

Recorder Anne McAllister rejected Mr. Frame’s position.

Costs were awarded against the Defendants of £7000 plus their own costs of £5000

A very expensive exercise.