Party Wall Case Law Nutt v Podger

Party Wall Case Law Nutt v Podger & Veda Road Ltd (2021), the County Court at Central London considered the unauthorised development works carried out to a party wall under the Party Wall etc. Act 1996.

This judgment, delivered by HHJ Parfitt, offers an important case study on consent, remedies, and nuisance claims relating to party wall disputes.

The case provides valuable insight for surveyors, developers, and adjoining owners on the consequences of failing to follow the statutory framework of the 1996 Act.

Background and Key Facts

The Claimant, Mr Timothy Nutt, owned and resided at 45 Veda Road, a 1930s terraced property in South London.

The neighbouring property, 47 Veda Road, was acquired by Veda Road Ltd in June 2020 as a development project. The company, controlled by Mr George Podger (the Second Defendant), began substantial works including a loft conversion and party wall alterations without serving a party wall notice.

Despite the clear applicability of the 1996 Act to the works being undertaken—including roof removal, insertion of steel beams, and raising the party wall—no notice was served.

The Defendants argued that the Claimant had consented to the works verbally during a brief conversation.

The Claimant denied giving any such consent and initiated proceedings, which included claims of nuisance alongside the statutory breach.

Issues for Determination

HHJ Parfitt identified the following core issues:

Whether the Claimant consented to the works (the “Consent Issue”).

What remedies should be granted for breach of the 1996 Act (the “1996 Act Remedies Issue”).

Whether the Defendants were liable in nuisance for fire, falling debris, and construction noise (the “Nuisance Issues”).

The Consent Issue

The Defendants contended that a verbal exchange around 20 June 2020 amounted to consent. However, the Judge found this defence "hopeless," citing:

No written agreement as required by s3(3) of the 1996 Act.

Lack of any express verbal consent or behaviour from which consent could be inferred.

The Claimant's consistent objection to the unauthorised works, including WhatsApp messages, a solicitor's letter, and an injunction application.

Ultimately, the Court held that there was no consent, waiver, or estoppel. The conversation was at best a general neighbourly chat and had no legal consequence.

Remedies under the Party Wall etc. Act 1996

Present and Future Remedies:

Given the unauthorised nature of the works, HHJ Parfitt permitted the parties three months to regularise matters through retrospective consent or a party wall award. If they failed, the Claimant could return to court for an injunction to remove the works or seek further damages. The Judge acknowledged that removal of the loft extension would be a drastic remedy but left open the possibility due to structural concerns about steel beam supports.

Damages for Past Breach:

The Claimant was awarded:

£450 for actual physical damage to his property.

£750 as "negotiating damages" for being deprived of his statutory rights and the opportunity to negotiate consent.

These awards recognised both tangible loss and the broader breach of statutory protections.

The Nuisance Claims

1. Fire

The Judge found on the balance of probabilities that the Second Defendant failed to extinguish a bonfire, which later reignited and caused widespread alarm. This was held to constitute a nuisance, and the Claimant was awarded £500.

2. Noise

The Claimant and supporting witnesses provided compelling evidence of persistent Saturday afternoon construction noise, breaching local authority guidance. Damages of £2,000 were awarded.

3. Falling Debris

Occasional instances of debris falling into the Claimant’s garden, including a tape measure and broken tiles, led to a modest award of £250.

Liability

The Second Defendant was held personally liable for the fire and noise nuisance. The First Defendant (Veda Road Ltd) was liable for the debris nuisance.

Key Takeaways - Party Wall Case Law Nutt v Podger

Written Consent is Essential: Section 3(3) of the 1996 Act mandates written consent. Informal conversations cannot override statutory obligations.

Failure to Serve Notice Has Consequences: Developers who commence works without serving a party wall notice risk injunctions, damages, and potentially being forced to undo the works.

Nuisance Claims Can Arise Concurrently: Poor site management, particularly involving fire and noise, can give rise to actionable nuisance independent of party wall breaches.

Negotiating Damages Recognised: Courts may award compensation for the lost opportunity to negotiate consent, even where actual damage is limited.

Retrospective Compliance Possible but Risky: The court allowed time to rectify breaches, but if parties failed to regularise the situation, more severe remedies such as mandatory injunctions could follow.

Conclusion - Party Wall Case Law Nutt v Podger

Party Wall Case Law Nutt v Podger reaffirms the legal necessity of complying with the Party Wall etc. Act 1996.

Developers must not assume verbal consent or ignorance of the law provides a shield. The judgment highlights that courts can and will award damages for both statutory breaches and nuisance where warranted. It also underscores the power of the court to enforce compliance or impose retrospective sanctions where appropriate.

This case serves as a clear warning and practical guide to all parties involved in works near or on party walls: follow the correct procedure or face the legal and financial consequences.

By understanding the legal responsibilities under the Party Wall etc. Act 1996, property owners can manage construction risks more effectively, avoid disputes, and ensure fair compensation when damage occurs.

Resources

Party Wall Factsheet

Online Party Wall Quote

What is a Party Wall Agreement

Party Wall Case Law Ormiston-Kilsby v Fattahi

Contact

Whether you're starting a rear extension, basement excavation, or loft conversion, early advice from a qualified party wall specialist can save you time, stress, and unexpected expense.

If you're unsure about your obligations or want help navigating the process, get in touch.

For advice direct from one of our Surveyors, please call our Enquiry line on 020 4534 3135. If you would rather we called you instead, please fill in our Contact form and we will be in touch.

For a quick online quote for Party Wall advice, send us the details of your project. For more information on all aspects of Party Wall matters see the collection of articles in our blog.

For advice direct from one of our Surveyors, please call our Enquiry line on 020 4534 3135.

If you are planning work that is covered by the Act, or if you have received notice of work from a neighbour and want advice on how best to protect your property please contact: