In this article we provide an overview of the Party Wall Act 1996 (PWA 1996) and look at the recent High Court decision in Ezra v Gharehdaghi [2024] in which the claimants obtained an injunction against their neighbour who had carried out renovation works without complying with the Act.
WolfBite - the key takeaways
• The PWA 1996 enables a building owner to carry out works to, on or near the party wall, whilst giving an adjoining owner the right to influence how the works are carried out.• The process involves the service of statutory notices, followed by the making of an Award by duly appointed surveyors if the adjoining owner does not give written consent within a specified period.
• The works will be lawful if the PWA 1996 procedure is followed.
• If the PWA 1996 is not complied with, however, the works will be unlawful and may give rise to a claim in nuisance or trespass entitling the adjoining owner to an injunction or compensation.
• In Ezra, an injunction was granted where, having served a notice, the building owner carried out works to the party wall before the rest of the PWA 1996 process had been gone through.
• The case emphasises the need to fully comply with the PWA 1996 process when carrying out works to or near boundary structures, and the severe consequences for non-compliance.
What does the Party Wall Act 1996 do?
The PWA 1996 provides a framework that is intended to deal with the practical problems associated with carrying out works to structures that are on or near to the boundary with a neighbouring property.If followed properly, the PWA 1996 authorises one property owner (the “building owner”) to carry out certain works that might impact their neighbour (the “adjoining owner”), and lays down a process for resolving disputes between them.
An adjoining owner cannot stop a building owner from exercising rights given to them by the PWA 1996, but they may be able to influence how and when the works are carried out.
The framework accordingly seeks to balance the competing interests of the parties by giving the building owner the rights it needs to carry out its works whilst protecting the adjoining owner’s property.
The Act applies to proposed works to:
• an existing party wall or structure (such as repairing, rebuilding, cutting into, underpinning, removing a chimney breast and inserting a damp proof course);
• build a new party wall or structure on the boundary;
• excavate within six metres of a neighbouring building. The procedures under the PWA 1996 are separate and distinct from the planning and building regulations regimes.
What is a party wall and party structure?
Regrettably, the definitions and some of the terminology the PWA 1996 uses are a little confusing.The government has, however, published an explanatory booklet that contains a series of helpful diagrams that illustrate the different types of party walls and structures that exist.
There are broadly four types of party wall, namely:
• where the wall of one building straddles the boundary.
• where the wall separates two (or more) buildings (a good example being the wall between terraced houses).
• where the wall is entirely on one person’s land, but the adjoining owner has a building that is enclosed by that wall (for example,
• where a garage has been built up against the neighbour’s wall).
• where a wall straddles the boundary but has no buildings attached to it on either side (for example, a brick or stone garden wall – but not wooden fences or hedges).
A party structure is a wider term. It includes party walls but also horizontal party structures such as the floors and ceilings between flats.
How does the PWA 1996 work?
Where the building owner wishes to carry out works to an existing party wall or structure, build a new party wall on the boundary or carry out excavations that might affect an adjoining owner’s property, they must serve a notice on the adjoining owner a minimum period of time before commencing the works.The length and form of notice depends on what works are to be carried out.
In the case of proposed works to an existing party wall, the notice must be served at least two months before the works commence. It is open to the adjoining owner to give written consent within 14 days.
However, the adjoining owner can object to the works, or they may not respond to the notice at all in which case a dispute is deemed to have arisen. In either case, the dispute must then be resolved by a written “Award” made by surveyors.
The parties can jointly appoint a party wall surveyor to make an Award. Alternatively, it is quite common for each to appoint their own surveyor who will seek to agree the terms of the Award or, if they cannot agree, they will select a third surveyor to make the Award.
Importantly, any surveyor involved in the process must consider the interests and rights of both owners and act impartially. They have a duty to resolve matters in a fair and practical way.
An Award will typically set out:
• the works that will be carried out.
• how and when the works will be carried out.
• any works that are required to protect the adjoining owner’s property.
• a schedule showing the condition of both properties before the works begin.
• rights of access for the surveyor(s) to inspect the works whilst in progress.
• who should pay the costs of making the Award (which will typically be the building owner where the works are solely for their benefit).
Hopefully, if the works are carried out in accordance with the Award, that will be the end of the matter.
However, it is sometimes the case that the adjoining owner’s property will be damaged during or as a result of the building owner’s works. In this situation, the same party wall surveyor(s) can make a supplemental award that provides for the building owner to compensate the adjoining owner for any resulting loss or damage. This might, for example, include the costs of repairs, alternative accommodation, compensation for inconvenience, storage charges and money to replace damaged belongings.
What if the building owner does not comply with the PWA 1996?
If the building owner carries out works without having served the requisite notice, or without first obtaining an award entitling them to do the works, they will not have the protection of the PWA 1996.In this situation, the building owner will be in breach of statutory duty and their actions will likely give rise to a claim by the adjoining owner in nuisance and possibly trespass.
It will be open to the adjoining owner to seek an injunction to prevent the work continuing unless and until the building owner complies with their statutory obligation to serve notice and obtain an Award. The adjoining owner might, alternatively, claim financial compensation (damages).
What happened in Ezra v Gharehdaghi?
Laila and Sharon Ezra owned 293 Watford Way.Mr Gharehdaghi bought the neighbouring property, 295 Watford Way, in May 2024.
293 and 295 were semi-detached houses divided by a shared party wall.
In June 2024, Mr Gharehdaghi obtained permission from the local planning authority authorising him to carry out a proposed loft extension, to include building a new dormer, a Juliette balcony and installing new windows.
Having become aware of the proposed loft extension, the Ezras’ representatives wrote to Mr Gharehdaghi in July 2024 noting concerns as to a potential loss of light. It is not clear whether he received that letter.
In any case, Mr Gharehdaghi said that he subsequently telephoned Laila Ezra in August and September 2024 during which conversations she “did not indicate any objections” to his proposed works.
Scaffolding was erected at the end of September 2024 and the renovation works started on 1 October 2024.
On 4 October 2024, the Ezras’ solicitors wrote to Mr Gharehdaghi stating that the Ezras did not consent to any works that would be caught by the PWA 1996. They sought confirmation that no such works would be commenced without serving the requisite party wall notices.
PWA 1996 notices were then served on 8 October 2024, which related to works to an existing party wall (the loft conversion) and to excavation works (a proposed rear extension at ground level).
The Ezras had by this time engaged a surveyor who told Mr Gharehdaghi’s builders that they should stop work on the property given that PWA 1996 notices had now been served. In particular, they said no structural work should be carried out to the party wall or in close proximity to it until an Award had been made in accordance with the statutory procedure.
The works did not stop, however.
Instead, the works continued which included the insertion of a beam into the party wall in the loft.
On 18 October 2024, the Ezras sought and obtained an urgent interim injunction without giving Mr Gharehdaghi notice. The injunction order stated that Mr Gharehdaghi must not undertake any works to the party wall that were subject to the PWA 1996 notices that had been served.
The way that this type of urgent interim injunction works is that you have an initial hearing at which the court will decide whether to impose a temporary injunction. If it does, a second hearing, called the "return date", will quickly be fixed at which the defendant can make representations.
The return date in this case took place on 1 November 2024.
In fact, a party wall Award was made shortly before the return date hearing. The question was, therefore, whether the interim injunction was still required.
At the hearing, Mr Gharehdaghi’s representatives said that there was no intention to carry out further work in breach of the PWA 1996, such that the injunction should be discharged. They said that, during the conversations with Mr Gharehdaghi, Laila Ezra had said that she did not object to the proposed works. They also asserted that the works that had been carried out in the loft had only been within Mr Gharehdaghi’s own property, not to the party wall.
The Ezras’ representatives, on the other hand, said that inconsistencies in Mr Gharehdaghi’s evidence coupled with the carrying out of unlawful works even after the PWA 1996 notices had been served meant that continuing the injunction was justified.
The Court decided that it was appropriate for the injunction to continue.
The Judge had no doubt that Mr Gharehdaghi had carried out works to the party wall without having complied with the PWA 1996, not least cutting into the loft party wall to take the new beam. These works were accordingly unlawful.
The Judge also had severe reservations about the inconsistencies in Mr Gharehdaghi’s evidence. This included an attempt at the return date hearing to recategorise the absence of an indication of an objection to the proposed works by Laila Ezra during the first telephone conversation, as being a positive indication that she did not object. Not objecting to works was not in any case the same as positively consenting to the works for the purposes of the PWA 1996.
It was also relevant that Mr Gharehdaghi had not acknowledged his unlawful conduct to the Court.
All in all, the Judge was not satisfied that further work in breach of the PWA 1996 would not be carried out if the injunction was discharged.
Comment
This will be an expensive mistake for Mr Gharehdaghi, and a stark warning to anyone who carries out works without complying with the PWA 1996.Mr Gharehdaghi will now have to pay the Ezras’ legal fees as well as his own, in addition to the costs of his renovation works and all fees associated with complying with the PWA 1996.
Building owners should take early advice about their obligations from specialist party wall surveyors or solicitors well in advance of carrying out any proposed works
.
Adjoining owners should ensure that they insist on full compliance with the PWA 1996 procedure even if they might consent to the neighbour’s works in principle, and move quickly if they believe that their neighbour is trying to cut corners.
Injunctions are an extreme remedy, but they are sometimes necessary. That is certainly the case with works to party walls given the risk of damage to the adjoining owner’s property and where the statutory framework exists so that works can be carried out, and disputes resolved, in an orderly manner.
