Case Summary


 Court of Appeal
 Not Binding
Current Legislation:
 Party Wall etc. Act 1996, s. 3(1)(b)
Historic Legislation:
 London Building Act 1894, 90(1)

Hobbs owned 76 Cheapside in London and Grover owned number 75. The properties were separated by a party wall. Grover wanted to demolish and rebuilt 75, and served notice to that effect.

Hobbs claimed the notice was invalid, as it did not contain “the nature and particulars of the proposed works” as required by section 90(1) of the 1895 Act (now section 3(1)(b) of the 1996 Act), and applied for an injunction restraining the works


The notice was not valid.

A party structure notice must be so clear and intelligible that the adjoining owner can judge whether he should consent to the works and what (if any) counter-notice he might serve, especially in respect of the adjoining owners right to require the building owner to undertake works.


There is no magic wording for notices, and each case will turn upon its own facts. It is thought that, at a minimum, the notice should set the specific sections and/or subsections of the Act the building owner is relying on, and in respect of each subsection, what works the building owner intends to undertake.