000			01626cab a2200253 4500
001			ABS45843
008			090401t1991 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u55393
041			_aeng
245			_aAlcock v Wraith and others
260			_c1991
350			_a0
490			_aConstruction Industry Law Letter _v1991 CILL 724-726(3)
520			_aCA 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
650			_aDUTY OF CARE
650			_aINDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS
650			_aLIABILITY
650			_aNEGLIGENCE
650			_aParty walls _96258
650			_aREROOFING
690			_aBUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION-CASE LAW
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c33836 _d33836