The London Building Acts 1894 to 1905 : (57 & 58 Victoria, cap. CCXIII; 61 & 62 Victoria, cap. CXXXVII. 5 Edwardus VII. cap CCIX.) : with copious index, notes, cross references, legal decisions and diagrams, also the bylaws and regulations / edited by Bernard Dicksee.

Date:
1906
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: The London Building Acts 1894 to 1905 : (57 & 58 Victoria, cap. CCXIII; 61 & 62 Victoria, cap. CXXXVII. 5 Edwardus VII. cap CCIX.) : with copious index, notes, cross references, legal decisions and diagrams, also the bylaws and regulations / edited by Bernard Dicksee. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    409/424 (page 375)
    a building owner and an adjoining owner under Section 90 with respect to the raising of a party wall, they have no jurisdiction to award compensation to the adjoining owner in respect of loss of trade arising from the execu- tion of the work (Adams v. Marylebonc B.G., K.B. 70 J.P. 545 ; 75 L. J. (K.B.) 995 ; (1906) 2 K.B. 767 ; 93 L. T. 540; C.A. 71 J.P. 465: (1907) 2 K.B. 882; (1907) W. N. 187 ; 77 L. J. (K.B.) 1; 97 L. T. 593; 23 T. L. K. 702; 3 A. L. R. 108). Secs. 5 (31), 90 (1), & 201 (8). Ch. 1906 (Warrington, J.). Where a railway com- pany had acquired by agreement, under powers conferred upon them by their special Act, a house, which they proceeded to pull down, thereby, it was alleged by the owners of the adjoining building, ‘ affecting ’ the party wall, without having given them a party wall notice as required by Section 90, and an injunction was asked for restraining the company from continuing the demoli- tion of the building, it was held that the company were not exempt under their special Act from the pro- visions of the Building Act, and were bound to give the adjoining owners the usual party wall notice, in default of which the adjoining owners were entitled to an injunction ; but it was held upon the facts that the company, not having done anything that amounted to a substantial interference with the party wall, had done nothing that ‘ affected ’ the party wall, and consequently were not * building owners ’ within the meaning of Section 5 (31) (Lewis and Salome v. Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway Co., (1906) 1 Gh. 508 ; 70 J.P. 221 ; 75 L. J. (Ch.) 282; 94 L. T. 732 ; 54 W. R. 435 ; 4 L. G. R. 432). Sec. 90 (1). Ch. 1907 (Neville, J.). The party structure notice required to be served by the building owner on the adjoining owner must be served on every person in possession of or in receipt of rents or profits arising from the adjoining premises or in occupation of the same otherwise than as a tenant from year to year, or for any less term, or as a tenant at will (see definition of ‘owner’ in Section 5 (29)). But where a particular interest in adjoining premises is owned by a number of persons together, as in the case of a tenancy in common or a joint tenancy, then it is sufficient to serve