CA 13 December 1991. In January 1984 a couple, S, obtained an improvement grant from the local authority to reroof their terraced house. The plaintiff, A, owned the adjacent house. S employed W to carry out the work. Before work was done the terrace had been roofed in slate in a continuous roof uninterrupted by party walls. The grant was insufficient to use slate tiles so concrete interlocking tiles were used instead. A noticed damp. He got a surveyors report which stated that the interlocking tiles extended beyond that party wall, some of A`s slates had been removed, the overlap between the slates had been destroyed and the join between the tiles was affected by stuffing newspaper in the gap and covering with a cement filler which in time became saturated with water. S had sold the property to B in January 1987 and in June 1986 W had gone bankrupt. In March 1988 A brought proceedings against W, S and B claiming damages to cover the cost of repair and for stress, inconvenience and an