Injunctions will they never learn!!!!!

Zaher v Patel (2019) - Central London County Court HHJ Luba QC

It is amazing if not shocking that some 22 years of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 that property owners are still carrying out party wall works in breach of the statutory legislation. Even more worrying is when the property owner is a commercial landlord. In this application for an injunction Mr. Patel had ignored his obligations to serve notice on the adjoining owners (Zaher) and as a consequence following repeated requests to stop. Mr. Philip Antino was instructed to provide advice as to their options for the breaches of the Party Wall Act.

Philip Antino advised that they should take immediate legal advice to seek an injunction. Prior to the application the building owner advised that he had appointed a surveyor, yet refused to stop the notifiable works. Really how illogical is that!!

Having recognized his obligations in open correspondence that the Act applied, it was inevitable that an injunction would be obtained. That has now bought the building works to a standstill. As a commercial landlord, this has a significant impact because of the delays in building works, therefore, delays in reletting the property, and therefore affects his income.

It is astonishing that a commercial landlord would be so blasé about exposing himself to not only considerable legal costs for the injunction but the inevitable delays and the costs which he is going to incur anyway.

What was the objective, where was the financial benefit? Was the incentive?

MacLachlan v Patel (2019) - Central London County Court HHJ Luba QC

A second injunction was obtained against this landlord (Patel) on the same day on two separate buildings to the case above, having ignored his obligations to serve notice on this adjoining owner.

He now has two properties that cannot progress works until the party wall matters are concluded, and he is suffering the financial hardship and losses that go with that. Again, what has he achieved apart from exposing himself to considerable costs?

Service of notice is a statutory requirement, it is foolish of any building owner to think that in this day and age they can get away with avoiding their statutory obligations.

Notwithstanding, in this particular case (MacLachlan) extensive damage had been caused to the adjoining owner's property.