000			01863cam a2200301 4500
001			X115034
008			011009n2001 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u115034
245			_aRees v Skerrett and another
260			_c2001
490			_aEstates Gazette _v[2001] 40 EG, 163-170(8)
520			_aCA 23 May 2001. A owned a terraced house. B owned the adjoining house which was subsequently demolished. The whole of the common wall was left in place. C became the owner of the site. A was told remedial work was needed to stabilise the wall and prevent damp penetration. A thus sought damages from B and C for structural work and damp proofing. CC Judge concluded there was an easement of support in respect of downward pressure exerted by the weight of the roof, but this did not include support to withstand the effect of the wind. B was also not found liable for damage due to damp penetration. A appealed. Held that wind support should be regarded as an aspect of support that one or two adjoining buildings provides to the other. B did owe a duty of care to take reasonable steps to provide weather-proofing for the dividing wall once it was exposed to the elements. Appeal allowed. Full copy of judgement available on http://porch.ccta.gov.uk/courtser/judgements.nsf/Search/4DBCDEAC55FF942180256A560056CE89?OpenDocument
650			_aREES V SKERRETT
650			_aEASEMENTS
650			_aEASEMENT OF SUPPORT
650			_aWIND
650			_aDAMP
650			_aWEATHERPROOFING
650			_aParty walls _96258
650			_aTERRACED HOUSING
650			_aDEMOLITION
650			_aRIGHT OF SUPPORT
650			_aNUISANCE
650			_aNEGLIGENCE
690			_aBoundary disputes _96221
856			_uhttps://porch.ccta.gov.uk/courtser/judgements.nsf/Search/4DBCDEAC55FF942180256A560056CE89?OpenDocument
942			_n0
999			_c68513 _d68513