Udal & Anor v Dutton & Anor

An interim injunction is appropriate where unauthorised works to jointly owned property raise a serious issue to be tried, the balance of convenience favours preserving the property, and damages would be inadequate. A party fence wall cannot be demolished or damaged without following the statutory party-wall procedure and obtaining the necessary agreement or determination. The preservation of property rights may outweigh compensation, particularly where a householder’s property has been destroyed without consent.

The claimants owned 5 Soudan Road and the defendants owned the adjoining 7 Soudan Road. The properties shared a jointly owned party fence wall. After discussions between the parties’ party-wall surveyors, and before any addendum award had been agreed, the defendants demolished part of the wall in connection with proposed building works.

The claimants sought an interim injunction restraining further building works, demolition or damage to the wall, and requiring the defendants to erect a temporary barrier. The central issue was whether the requirements for interim injunctive relief were satisfied.

1. The application for an interim injunction was granted. The defendants were restrained from undertaking building works in or adjacent to the party fence wall, or from further demolishing or damaging it, subject to erecting a suitable barrier on their own property.
2. The court applied the principles stated in American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396 (HL), Zockoll Group Ltd v Mercury Communications Ltd (No 1) [1998] FSR 354, and Nottingham Building Society v Eurodynamics Systems Plc [1993] FSR 468. The claimants had to show a serious issue to be tried, that the balance of convenience favoured an injunction, and that damages would not be an adequate remedy.
3. There was plainly a serious issue to be tried. The unauthorised demolition amounted to trespass and wrongful interference with the claimants’ property. The party-wall process existed to enable agreement or identify disputes before works were undertaken.
4. The balance of convenience favoured protecting what remained of the wall and temporarily replacing the demolished section. Damages were inadequate because a householder whose property had been destroyed without consent would be concerned principally with preserving property rights, rather than obtaining monetary compensation.
5. The defendants’ suggestion that the wall was unsafe was unsupported by the party-wall award and relied on an engineer’s letter concerning a different property. The court directed that a transcript be made available to the defendants, in the hope that the dispute could be resolved without a further hearing.