Overview
Rashid v Sharif is a useful case because it shows two things at once: failing to follow the Act can be trespass, but the court may still look carefully at proportionality when deciding the remedy.
That should not encourage anyone to ignore the Act. It should encourage them to avoid court altogether by serving notice properly.
What happened
A separating brick wall was removed and rebuilt. Ownership and the precise boundary position were disputed.
The decision
The Court of Appeal treated the wall as a party fence wall. Because the required party wall procedure had not been followed, the works amounted to trespass.
However, the court discharged the mandatory injunction and substituted modest damages. The practical outcome might not have been very different if the Act had been followed.
Why it matters
This is not a licence to build first and apologise later.
The damages may have been modest, but getting to that point involved litigation, cost, risk and stress.
Practical lesson
If a boundary wall may be a party fence wall, serve notice before removing or rebuilding it.
If you are the adjoining owner, focus on practical outcome, evidence and proportionality as well as the procedural failure.