Overview
Seef v Ho is a strong reminder that friendly conversations do not replace the Party Wall etc. Act 1996.
If the works are notifiable, proper notices should be served even where neighbours appear relaxed.
What happened
The Hos carried out roof works involving their neighbours' garage wall. Planning permission had referred to the Party Wall Act, but formal notices were not served.
The neighbours did not object while the works were being carried out, but later sought an injunction or substantial compensation.
The decision
The Court of Appeal found that informal discussions did not amount to consent to the specific works carried out.
The Hos were liable in trespass. However, demolition was refused and only modest damages were awarded.
Why it matters
The case is uncomfortable because both sides may have thought they were being practical at the time. The problem was the lack of clear statutory paperwork and clear written consent.
Planning permission is not party wall consent. A neighbour watching works happen is not necessarily consenting to them.
Practical lesson
If you are relying on consent, document it properly.
If the Act applies, serve the correct notice. Do not assume a chat over the fence will protect you later.