Alcock v Wraith and others
Alcock v Wraith and others
- 1991
- Construction Industry Law Letter 1991 CILL 724-726(3) .
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
DUTY OF CARE
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS
LIABILITY
NEGLIGENCE
Party walls
REROOFING
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
DUTY OF CARE
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS
LIABILITY
NEGLIGENCE
Party walls
REROOFING