Jones & Anor v Ruth & Anor

Construction works on adjoining property may constitute nuisance where their nature, duration, timing, noise, vibration or other interference exceeds what a neighbour should reasonably accommodate. The assessment is contextual and cumulative. Protracted, sporadic works carried out without reasonable notice may become unreasonable even though some construction activity is inevitable.

Where a neighbour’s wall is used without authority for structural support, the resulting interference may also constitute trespass. A defective party-wall notice does not establish consent to works affecting property outside the party wall. Private nuisance protects the amenity and enjoyment of land, but does not provide a cause of action for personal injury. Psychiatric or physical injury therefore requires an independently established negligence claim.

The claimants, joint owners and occupiers of 105 Lower Thrift Street, sued the owners of adjoining properties at 103 and 101 for trespass, nuisance, harassment and personal injury. The dispute concerned extensive refurbishment works, including the construction of a third storey and roof at 103, interference with the gable and garden walls, damage to the claimants’ property, prolonged noise and disruption, and the defendants’ subsequent conduct.

The central issues were ownership of the relevant walls, whether the defendants had obtained effective party-wall consent, whether the construction activity was an actionable nuisance, whether the defendants’ conduct amounted to harassment, and whether the first claimant could recover personal injury damages in nuisance or negligence.

1. Wall ownership and consent. The gable wall of 105 which was not enclosed by the original structure of 103 remained the claimants’ property. The garden wall dividing 103 and 105 was wholly on the claimants’ land. The part of the former external wall enclosed by 103’s original structure and chimney had become a party wall. A party-wall notice which failed to identify the parties and address, and which gave only a bare description of the works, was invalid. In the absence of reasonable information there was no express or implied permission for works affecting the claimants’ gable wall.
2. Trespass and nuisance. The erection of the third-storey walls, insertion of purlins and attachment of roofing to the claimants’ gable wall were trespasses. The works caused physical damage, including cracking, roof damage and water ingress. Construction interference must be assessed by reference to the nature and duration of the works, their timing, the level of noise or other interference, and whether reasonable notice was given. Four years of sporadic and ad hoc works, including weekend activity, excessive noise, vibration, smoke, storage and scaffolding affecting the claimants’ land, amounted to grave nuisance. Works at 101 were too remote to found liability.
3. Harassment. The first defendant’s aggressive and bullying conduct, viewed in the context of the prolonged dispute and the surrounding conduct of the defendants’ household, amounted to a campaign of harassment within the meaning of the