Key Facts
- •Mr. Taylor carried out work in his garden, causing damage to neighboring properties owned by the Joneses and Mr. Spriggs.
- •A surveyor awarded substantial compensation to the neighbors under the Party Wall etc. Act 1996.
- •Mr. Taylor appealed, successfully reducing the compensation amount but was ordered to pay 75% of the respondents' costs.
- •The damage included pre-existing defects in the neighbors' properties, which were exacerbated by Mr. Taylor's work.
- •The central dispute was whether Mr. Taylor should pay for repairing the pre-existing damage, not caused by his work.
Legal Principles
Party Wall etc. Act 1996: Building owners must compensate adjoining owners for loss or damage resulting from work executed under the Act.
Party Wall etc. Act 1996, s. 7(2)
Causation: The 'but for' test applies to determine whether Mr. Taylor's works caused the damage.
Judge's findings
Compensation assessment: While the Act is a statutory code, common law principles of fairness and reasonableness apply in assessing compensation.
Lee Valley Developments Ltd v Derbyshire [2017] EWHC 1353 (TCC)
Betterment: Deductions for betterment are made only if the claimant had a choice in the matter and chose a more expensive mitigation route. A deduction is made if the claimant received a monetary benefit from improvements; not if the benefit is non-pecuniary.
Harbutt's Plasticine Ltd v Wayne Tank and Pump Co Ltd [1970] 1 QB 447; Sartex Quilts & Textiles Ltd v Endurance Corporate Capital Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 308; Lagden v O’Connor [2003] UKHL 64
Costs on appeal: In cases solely about money, the party who ends up paying less is generally the successful party. However, this can be modified on appeal where the appeal is a rehearing, shifting the burden of proof to the respondent.
CPR r 44.2; Zissis v Lukomski [2006] EWCA Civ 341; Multiplex Constructions (UK) v Cleveland Bridge [2008] EWHC 2280 (TCC)
Outcomes
Appeal allowed on Ground 2 (liability for pre-existing damage).
Mr. Taylor is not liable for the cost of underpinning the rear wall because, while necessary, it wasn't needed to repair the damage *caused* by his works. The underpinning addressed pre-existing defects.
Appeal dismissed on Ground 1 (costs).
Despite reducing the compensation amount, the respondents were deemed the successful parties because the appeal was a rehearing where they bore the burden of proof on all issues, effectively making it a new trial. They successfully defended the central issue of causation.