000			01717cad a22001935a 4500
001			L142715
008			080304e20071130xxk f w 000 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u142715
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aUdal v Dutton _h[electronic resource]
260			_c2008
520			_a[2007] EWHC 2862 (TCC), 30 November 2007. Considers the liability of a property owner who has demolished a section of a party wall without permission of the other property owner to remedy the situation and secure the boundary. The applicant householders (U) applied for an interim injunction preventing the respondent developers (D) from further developing a party fence wall. D had applied for permission to use the wall between gardens as part of extension work, to which U had objected. Surveyors confirmed its status as a party fence wall. There was no concern expressed about the condition of the wall. D subsequently argued by handwritten note that the wall was unsafe, and the following day demolished part of the wall. "Held": There had been no suggestion that the wall was unsafe. D was guilty of trespass and wrongful interference with property. U sought an injunction to prevent further interference, and to take appropriate steps to secure the boundary, which was a more appropriate measure than a damages award since U was concerned merely that interference with their property be avoided. Application granted.
590			_aKA
650	2	4	_aUDAL V DUTTON
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aPROPERTY-PROPERTY MANAGEMENT-EASEMENTS-PARTY WALL SURVEYING-PARTY WALLS
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2007/2862.html _zView the judgment free of charge at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c79919 _d79919