Court:

Status:

Current Legislation:

Historic Legislation:

Facts:

This case arises out of the earlier case of Leadbetter v Marylebone Corporation [No. 1]. Following that decision Marylebone served a party structure notice. However, an award had still not be made six months later (being the period for works in the then-in-force s. 90).

Leadbetter sought the removal of the earlier works because, the party structure notice having expired, Marylebone was now in breach of the injunction.   

Decision:

 The Court found that the six month time for commencing works in s. 90 (now 12 months under s. 3(2)(b) of the 1996 Act) applied only where the adjoining owner had consented to the works and were proceedings on the notice only.

Where the adjoining owner had dissented to the notice and the matter was being dealt with by the surveyors this limitation period did not apply.

Comment:

This case is the rational for surveyors including a time period (usually 12 months) in their awards. The validity of such a clause has not been tested. In the absence of such a time limitation, the building owner may have up to six years to start works.