London & Manchester Assurance Co Ltd v O&H Construction Ltd and Another
London & Manchester Assurance Co Ltd v O&H Construction Ltd and Another
- 1989
- Estates Gazette (1989) 29 EG 65-68(3) .
ChD 21 March 1988 Notice of motion by (L), plaintiffs in an action commenced by writ against the defendants (O). The two parties were adjoining owners of areas of old London wharves . Between the two areas there was a wall treated by the present owners predecessors in title as a party wall . O commenced work on site, appointed a party wall surveyor and demolished the wall. They also erected a crane jib which passed over the air space of L`s property and commenced new building work on the boundary . L sought injunctions to prevent trespass by the crane jib and to remove building work that encroached on their land. ChD held that removal of the wall and the new building work constituted a trespass and a breach of the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939 . Although it was unusual to order removal of building work by way of interlocutory proceedings, O had not followed the correct procedures under the 1939 Act. Also held that it is clear trespass to swing the jib over the airspace of
ChD 21 March 1988 Notice of motion by (L), plaintiffs in an action commenced by writ against the defendants (O). The two parties were adjoining owners of areas of old London wharves . Between the two areas there was a wall treated by the present owners predecessors in title as a party wall . O commenced work on site, appointed a party wall surveyor and demolished the wall. They also erected a crane jib which passed over the air space of L`s property and commenced new building work on the boundary . L sought injunctions to prevent trespass by the crane jib and to remove building work that encroached on their land. ChD held that removal of the wall and the new building work constituted a trespass and a breach of the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939 . Although it was unusual to order removal of building work by way of interlocutory proceedings, O had not followed the correct procedures under the 1939 Act. Also held that it is clear trespass to swing the jib over the airspace of