One thought on “Shah v Kyson, 2 March 2020”

  1. Re: Shan V Kyson

    I think the judge got this wrong.

    He makes reference to Louis V Sadiq but in that case I understand that it was impossible to tell whether the damage was caused by works within the scope of the Act or by by works outside of the Act. Therefore it was impossible to clearly say the damage was a direct consequence of the works (un-notified) under the Act. As such it made sense not to deal with the damage under common law.

    The first thing I did when I started my involvement on party wall matters was to ring and speak with those on the Working Party to find out the reasons behind the change of wording. It was effective to overturn the “Woodhouse” decision but it seems the change of wording is not tight enough probably a consequence of the 1996 Act being rushed through.

    Looking forward to todays webinar, I think it worked well bringing in Katie.


    Christopher Scott

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *